# Marriage Defined by the State????????



## Hebrew Student (Jul 8, 2010)

Hey Everyone!

I just now came across this news story, and I am quite amazed at the logic that the court used in this case, and even more amazed that people are actually calling this logic "landmark" and "life changing."

The problem is that, when a secularist denies the triune God of scripture, he has to replace it with something. In this case, it appears that the state is replacing God. The problem is that, once you grant to the state the ability to define the institution of marriage, the state can change its mind. For example, all states could get together, and decide that they want to define marriage in such a way so as to exclude gay marriage.

That is why it is so surprising to see homosexuals praising this decision. First of all, one could have predicted the outcome of this decision simply given the venue of the case: Boston, Massachusetts. Hence, the decision is not all that impressive, and, in fact, I would guess that it will probably be overturned. However, it is interesting that that those that deny the triune God of scripture will submit themselves to any god that gives them what they want, even if that god freely admits that he could take it away if he changes his mind.

By contrast, the God of scripture defines marriage in his act of creation according to his own nature and character. Thus, it is unchanging. Praise God that he has delivered us from the thinking of these "gay rights" advocates so that we don't have this ever shifting foundation to define morals and ethics!

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 9, 2010)

The American Puritans believed that marriage was a civil thing, not a church thing, so they practiced marriage by the state. However, they also believed the state should submit to God's Word, so naturally this wouldn't have led to homosexual marriage among them.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 9, 2010)

austinww said:


> The American Puritans believed that marriage was a civil thing, not a church thing, so they practiced marriage by the state.


 
I think I know what you're getting at, but I would add a few thoughts:

1. The state was not considered to marry anyone; the state served as a record keeping source and an enforcer of rights.

2. God ultimately married anyone who was married; the parents of the couple, and the husband and wife mediate such a Divine act.

3. The parishes in which each resided had a right to question the legality of such a marriage through the use of the marriage banns.

The parish, the family, the individual and the state each played a role: all for the glory of God to recognize God's act of making or not making a marriage.

The concept of the state marrying is expressed in the state "licensing" a marriage.

Cheers,


----------



## Galatians220 (Jul 9, 2010)

Heathen will do what heathen will do and they'll reap the consequences, as will everyone who participated in the unutterable evil of "legalizing homosexual marriage." Barely less culpable before the Lord are those states that long ago adopted "no-fault" divorce and allowed serial monogamy to become _de rigueur_. What have the churches done about any of this? *Nothing.*

A pox is already on this country.

Margaret


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 9, 2010)

Hebrew Student said:


> The problem is that, once you grant to the state the ability to define the institution of marriage, the state can change its mind.


 
All states currently define marriage. Marriage is a legislated by the government and thus the government defines the institution of marriage. This definition used to be based on Scripture and in some places still is.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 9, 2010)

I understand what is - that marriage is defined by the state - but there is a difference between what is and what should be. Marriage was instituted by God - it is an ordinance given to mankind. Mankind is not free to redefine it.

I agree with the OP that this decision is but one of many that reflects the reality that our society has shifted the basis for rights from God (or natural law) to the state. You have no inalienable right to anything, you only have a right to what the state says you do.


----------



## BJClark (Jul 9, 2010)

You may be more encouraged if you read what's going on in Hawaii, the Governor recently vetoed a same-sex civil union bill that was given to her to sign, when asked the reason for her veto, she responded:

"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

Back in 1998, the people of Hawaii spoke and made known their wishes when they voted overwhelmingly to approve the nations first 'defense of marriage' consititional amendment.

However, even with this, it still leaves to the 'people', who are very fickle, to try and redefine what God Himself ordained.


----------



## T.A.G. (Jul 9, 2010)

Marriage does not belong to the government, in no way does the government have the right to handle or approve marriages. Where is that in Scripture?


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 10, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> Marriage does not belong to the government, in no way does the government have the right to handle or approve marriages. Where is that in Scripture?


 
Does marriage belong to the government? Does marriage belong to the visible church? Marriage is a common grace creational ordinance, reflecting the relationship of Christ and hic church, given to man for procreation and to be a comparable helpmate to satisfy the needs of one another; including mentally and sexually. I would make the case since it is a creational ordinance that it belongs to God and to not to one visible intuition, such as a government or the visible church. 

I do think, from a common grace stand point, that a government does have the right to handle and approve marriage because it is a contractual legal civil relationship between two parties of the opposite sex. In the case where one, such as a man, breaks his contractual vow through adultery the woman needs to have some type of protection for her and the offspring of that relationship; so that she and the children are provided for. This was not an issue of disagreement between the writers of scripture in relation to the government, which is why we do not see the Apostle Paul dealing with the issue of civil Greek and Roman marriages. Even frivolous divorce was condemned by Roman Empire [see Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Lusti Coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian (Clarendon Press, 1993), 471, 473]. 

Christian marriage in the first and early second century accepted and used the marriage rites and accepted practices around them. The Letter to Diogetus is one example of Christians using the marriage practices early on of surrounding cultures. “For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind in country or speech or custom. For they do not live somewhere in cities of their own or use some distinctive language or practice a peculiar manner of life.” “Like everyone else they marry, they have children.” The Address to Diogetus 5, trans. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950). The increase power of church authority over Christian and civil marriages emerged over time as the priests and bishops developed local judicial power and responsibilities. Christian priest involvement in marriage ceremonies didn’t start to emerge until about the 6th century and in church buildings until the seventh century in the eastern churches [see Anscar J. Chupungco, ed., Handbook for Liturical Studies Volume IV: Sacraments and Sacramentals (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 256-257]. Even though bishops or priests did not conduct the ceremony early on that does not mean that were not involved in some way in the marriage. They were but in the context of pastoral guidance/approval and blessing. 

Early pagan and Jewish marriages were arranged by heads of families, and not by the children themselves as the norm. The heads of families early on can be seen as an early form of established government. As families grew there was a godfather (think of the Italian mafia movie) like system that started to emerge with kings being represented of the godfather later on. As kings were conquered or placed under political union with higher kings, governments grew. Families still had a strong role in the choosing of who was to be married to who, but it was the government that established the political right and legal protection of those marriages by the right of the king, a form of legal protection that the king was to perform on all of his subjects in relation to all of his and the country’s laws. 

Now does any government have the right to defend marriage and those in the marriage? Yes, let me elaborate. We can see the practice of a government protecting marriage and the requirements for approved/continuing marriages within the Mosaic Law, from Exodus 21:10 or 22:16 to Deuteronomy 24, and many more passages. However protecting parties, like women, in a marriage relationship and a government having the right to redefine marriage are two different things. It would be like the government redefining what stealing or lying is. There already a clean cut established definition and purpose of marriage. If we are to say that a government has no right to be involved in the individual defense or the practice of confirming marriage then we would say then that Israel had no right to do so as well. However if one was to make such an argument, I think we would need then to go back to the Mosaic law and see what God’s expectation was for the government of Israel. I would extend this right and responsibility, under natural law, towards other governments as well; including our own as reflected by common law principles that govern for the good of society. Leviticus 21 gives clear testimony of who Levitical priests were to marry. There were laws regarding marrying a captive, protecting a woman name in marriage, raping a virgin; all under the responsibility of Israel as a government entity. Therefore applying that they had the right to handle a marriage and it also implies what the state of Israel saw as an approved binding marriage as well; as reflected in Ezra 10. 

Since marriage was established prior to the state, I think an argument may be made for it being a foundational pillar of the state. If marriage is to be destroyed by the society then the state will start to eventually fall apart in ruin. The defense for the definition of marriage should not be just a Christian enterprise, but one that has negative visible consequences for all of society. Since this is the case objective natural law arguments need to be made against homosexual marriages, and not just purely Christian or Jewish arguments that appeal against the passions of Homosexuals in marriage. And if we are to have any right to defend a Christian view of marriage, we need to move away from issues of feelings and look at marriages in relation to law and the purpose of law. At least those are my thoughts on the issue.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> Marriage does not belong to the government, in no way does the government have the right to handle or approve marriages. Where is that in Scripture?


 
Tyler,

When you say "government" are you referring to civil government? If so, that is probably a basic confusion in your mind.

As has been cited, God has ordained various spheres of government: the family, the state, and the church. Each has been assigned various roles within God's created realm, for His glory.

It is fairly simple to establish which sphere of government is responsible for "making marriages." Look through Scripture for instances of marriage, and you will find that: 1. The father of the woman to be married, or a suitable proxy, "gives" the woman in marriage. In other words, the father legitimizes the marriage. This is true from Genesis to Revelation (as for instance, Paul's citation in 1 Cor. 7; or Jesus point about the people before the flood and the people at the end of the age: they were "marrying and giving in marriage" as they will at the end). 2. The man "takes a wife."

At no point do we find that any other institution has the duty or right to allow people to marry. 

The civil sphere of government, as you will clearly see in Scripture, has the duty to punish the violation of marriage (adultery or abandonment), as well as to settle inheritance issues. Thus, they have a right to know who is married to whom, but this is different from permitting people to marry.

The ecclesiastical sphere has a duty to build up marriages by Word and sacrament, as well as to discipline those that sin in marriage by church discipline, and therefore the church has an interest in knowing who is married to whom. However, this does not give the church the right to say who may marry whom, unless issues of sin are involved (unlawful divorcee trying to marry, or bigamists, etc.).

I hope that helps.

Cheers,


----------

