# Marriage without the government



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 7, 2010)

I heard yesterday (and I have no way to know if it is true, so just consider it hypothetically true for sake of discussion) that the way the current Health Care Bill is set up absolutely destroys marriages in terms of taxes. Apparently if two people make 30,000 a year a piece their health care taxes are pretty low, but if they were married the joint income of 60,000 would cause their health care taxes to be approx 10x the amount if they were single. 

This got me thinking. Would you ever consider a time or situation where the church would marry a couple without seeking a marriage license? The couple would be married before God and church, but free from the burdensome taxation.

I have mixed feelings.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Jon Peters (Jan 7, 2010)

FYI

Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill - WSJ.com


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 7, 2010)

So maybe 10x was an exageration, but doubling the taxes still hurts.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 7, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I heard yesterday (and I have no way to know if it is true, so just consider it hypothetically true for sake of discussion) that the way the current Health Care Bill is set up absolutely destroys marriages in terms of taxes. Apparently if two people make 30,000 a year a piece their health care taxes are pretty low, but if they were married the joint income of 60,000 would cause their health care taxes to be approx 10x the amount if they were single.
> 
> This got me thinking. Would you ever consider a time or situation where the church would marry a couple without seeking a marriage license? The couple would be married before God and church, but free from the burdensome taxation.
> 
> ...



In Texas, it wouldn't matter. Agreeing to marry, cohabiting (sex not necessary), and holding yourselves out as husband and wife is all you have to do to trigger a common law (informal) marriage). Most states admittedly have stricter requirements, but you'd be married with just those three things in Texas.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jan 7, 2010)

I thought common law marriage had sort of gone away, the whole purpose behind it (originally, at least) having gone away. If I remember correctly, California doesn't have common law marriage anymore.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2010)

This stinks.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 7, 2010)

I know at my work the cost of two people on the health care plan is more than double the cost of just the employee.


----------



## smhbbag (Jan 7, 2010)

> I know at my work the cost of two people on the health care plan is more than double the cost of just the employee.



There are many places where this is the case for the cost on the employee's end, but it's not that way for the employer who is paying the bulk of the cost of the plan.

The reason is that employers are often more willing to subsidize the employee's health care than they are the health care of an employee's dependents. So, on the employee's end, it looks like it's more expensive to cover the second one than the first, but that is only because of a lower employer contribution to cover additional people.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 7, 2010)

This sort of thing is already happening. Just ask social workers in most states. A financially struggling couple who decide to get married will, if they both bring some income to the table, reduce the support they're eligible for. So getting married could, for instance, mean no more food stamps. In this way, the government is already encouraging cohabitation without marriage. Rather than marriage being a means to support one another and provide a more secure environment for children, government policies are designed to do the opposite.

And I agree. This stinks.


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2010)

The definition of 'marriage' that is understood by the church is different than that of the state (mostly). The state of CA's definition of marriage is way too vague for me to understand. For example, the state constitution stipulates that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but doesn't define what marriage is exactly. Therefore, when I merry a man and a woman, I do so according to God's Word and I really have no idea what the state thinks. I assume the couple sends in the packet, but I don't even know that for sure.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2010)

In many parts of the world, a marriage can be done and a couple live together without the consent or knowledge of the state. I would count these as true marriages and the couple is not in a state of perpetual fornication. But,in the US, aren't there laws that make us legally obligated to have some sort of interaction with the State? If so, then an illegal marriage might still be marriage and yet the married couple might be guilty of somemin or civil misdemeanor.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2010)

In America, marriage licenses began as a way to regulate interracial marriage, or if people didn't want to publish their marriage banns lawfully (see, for instance, the older version of the Book of Common Prayer). Later, once Americans became statist, it was assumed that the state had to give people permission (that's what a license is) to marry, since the state is our great father. I think the Uniform Marriage License Act was passed in the 19teens.

The state does not need to give permission for people to be married. The consent of the woman's father is requisite, or some other competent authority, if he is incapacitated; NOT the state's permission.

For historic use of the marriage license, one may view the link to Virginia's historic law:

Virginia Marriage Laws

The license is a means to create a three party marriage: man, woman (they want to change this part), and state. Whereas, the older triad was man, woman, and God.

If anyone is interested, I have an excerpt from a book which details colonial marriage laws and what the license used to be used for. PM me with your email address.

Cheers,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Curt (Jan 7, 2010)

Going back to the OP, this question remains unanswered. Any takers.



Chaplainintraining said:


> This got me thinking. Would you ever consider a time or situation where the church would marry a couple without seeking a marriage license? The couple would be married before God and church, but free from the burdensome taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts?


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2010)

Curt said:


> Going back to the OP, this question remains unanswered. Any takers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
CA has public and confidential licenses. When I perform the marriage, I sign as a witness but really have no idea whether the couple sends it in. In fact, for all I know, they might already be married according to the state. They are not required to tell me.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 7, 2010)

What does natural law say?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What does natural law say?


 
That God created man with an inalienable right to marry one woman. The civil magistrate's job is to punish adulterers, certain rapists, sodomites and bestialists with death, and to enforce marriages in the situations specified in the law. The state does not grant such a right to marry, and therefore may not license such. The only activities that require a license are activities which are illegal without such permission. Seeing marriage is not illegal without the state's permission, God does not require us to obtain state licensure for marriage.

Therefore, to the OP, a situation in which people are married without state sanction is perfectly lawful. In fact, the church really doesn't even make people married: it is the consent of the two parties married, the consent of the woman's father, and the witness of the solemn oaths taken by others.

Cheers,


----------



## lynnie (Jan 7, 2010)

I would guess it is already happening. I know a woman in her forties ( legitimately divorced) who decided to marry a bachelor her age. He was on disability and had meds free- asthma inhalers ( advair is 250 a month) plus albuterol, type 2 diabetes meds and blood glucose monitoring, and an anti depressant. She was broke but owned her home outright, so her assets were above the amount where you can get free meds. They found out that if they got legally married he would lose all his free meds (over 1,000 a month) because of the her assets. ( might be different state to state, this was PA). So, they had a public gathering of friends and family and exchanged marriage vows. Sorry to say the marriage didn't last, but I'd guess anybody poor with free meds might be going this route. 

I would want my husband's name.....a person's name in the bible signified their authority. Taking his name takes his authority. And of course with kids you'd want them to have the father's name. So that's a consideration...don't you need a state marriage to change your name?


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jan 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> ...don't you need a state marriage to change your name?


 
I can't speak for every state, but no, Georgia doesn't require it. They did require a public notice to run for a week or so announcing the change (for creditors, etc.), but that's it. I was never even asked why, as a matter of fact.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 7, 2010)

Would a marriage without state consent for the purpose of taxation or benefits be disobeying a civil law that although stupid, does not force one to commit sin? And if such a scheme were undertaken, wouldn't it then be dishonesty to declare on tax or benefit forms that one was not married so as to avoid higher taxes or benefit costs?


----------



## cpomann (Jan 7, 2010)

I actually had an elderly couple on my mail route who got a divorce years ago...... because of the advantage of just living together and cost of medications effected by the government. They continued to live together but were financially advantaged by the divorce.


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2010)

Brad said:


> Would a marriage without state consent for the purpose of taxation or benefits be disobeying a civil law that although stupid, does not force one to commit sin? And if such a scheme were undertaken, wouldn't it then be dishonesty to declare on tax or benefit forms that one was not married so as to avoid higher taxes or benefit costs?


 
That depends upon the stupid law that you are talking about. What is the definition of marriage to which you need state consent? The definition that says 'twain shall be made one flesh'? The definition that says God now gives his blessing to be fruitful and multiply? The definition of any two people who live together for a certain period of time? The definition that says whatever belonged to you before the marriage belongs to you after the divorce? The definition that says you can have 7 previous 'no fault' divorces and still get married again? Sorry for the rant, but I have pretty much given up on the state's definition of marriage.

That said, I agree with you that one must be careful of bearing false witness for the purpose of monetary gain.


----------



## Edward (Jan 7, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > ...don't you need a state marriage to change your name?
> ...


 

Admittedly, it's been many years since I did a name change in Georgia, but it used to require a court proceeding, and I think that it still does. 

File petition, publish required number of times, wait required time (which has usually run for adults by the time the publication is completed), and if no objections have been filed, present the order to the judge for signature. For divorce cases, just add a paragraph to the petition, and a paragraph to the decree.


----------



## Montanablue (Jan 7, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > ...don't you need a state marriage to change your name?
> ...



I'm pretty sure that anyone can change their name for any reason. You don't have to be married. (at least its this way in my state)

Edit: I didnt see the other replies to this before I answered. So, apparently its not like this in every state, but in Montana its extremely easy to change your name and I've had friends do it without getting married.


----------



## Curt (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm still confused. The state is not God.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 8, 2010)

Curt said:


> I'm still confused. The state is not God.


 
Someone forgot to tell the state that.


----------



## Edward (Jan 8, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > lynnie said:
> ...


 
In the states that I'm familiar with, the limitation is that you can't do it with an intent to commit fraud. 

OCGA:

§ 19-12-4. Change of name with fraudulent intent not authorized

Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize any person to change his name with a view to deprive another fraudulently of any right under the law.


----------



## Bald_Brother (Jan 8, 2010)

Just a thought stemming from the OP. If one does advocate marriage without state licensing (which I believe to be perfectly Lawful) what does one counsel a couple to put on their tax returns?

Single? Married?

If the couple is counseled not to lie, then, what does it matter (with respect to the OP)?


----------



## Bald_Brother (Jan 8, 2010)

Whoops, sort of restated a point already made.


----------



## nate895 (Jan 8, 2010)

Bald_Brother said:


> Just a thought stemming from the OP. If one does advocate marriage without state licensing (which I believe to be perfectly Lawful) what does one counsel a couple to put on their tax returns?
> 
> Single? Married?
> 
> If the couple is counseled not to lie, then, what does it matter (with respect to the OP)?


 
You could argue (and I'd say rightfully so) that the word the IRS means on its tax returns is not the same word meant by the Christians who would be opposed to state marriage. Therefore, it would not be lying because you are not getting asked whether you are married in the Biblical sense, but in the manner in which the state defines it.


----------



## Bald_Brother (Jan 8, 2010)

nate895 said:


> Bald_Brother said:
> 
> 
> > Just a thought stemming from the OP. If one does advocate marriage without state licensing (which I believe to be perfectly Lawful) what does one counsel a couple to put on their tax returns?
> ...


 
I guess. So then, "Single" on the return would be comparable to a Biblical marriage?


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2010)

Caution is needed here. The state's definition of marriage varies from state to state and from year to year. That is why I am hesitant to make any blanket statements about wrong or right. This is an issue that must be handled on a case by case basis. Do those of you in states that recognize homosexual unions as 'marriage' believe that you are married by the same definition?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 8, 2010)

The ecclesiastical view back in Scotland, in the Reformational days of the 16-17th centuries, was that marriage is a civil ordinance.

We are not Roman. Marriage isn't a sacrament. However, the progressively deeper entanglement of the State with our cultural factors makes for an "ungodly" mess.

I agree with Adam that state-licensing has only made our lives worse. However, this is God's judgment on society and culture that chooses to reject him. We live with this mess because the culture demands regulation (explicitly or implicitly) when men will not self-regulate under God. Self-government works its way out in cultural expression. Common-law, in other words, which judges used to be able to recognize and apply. And judges needed not to be purely State-sponsored representatives. (The fact that we still elect judges in many places reflects this bottom-up mentality.)

Bottom line: if you are law-abiding, then you carry out your station according to the law. Unless that earthly law obligates you to break God's law you must obey it in order not violate Rom.13. (not merely inconveniences you, or your life is harder because your "rights" are not being recognized--in many cases, God in his providence takes our "rights" away by bad government because we are such rebels).

Unless one has in fact seceeded from the State (and the church and minister along with him) I do not see how we may justly hand-wave the totalitarian intrusions of the State. If I, as a minister of Christ, agree to marry someone, I am offering my services in conformity to the social-order of the community I live in. In other words, I don't believe I am free to unilaterally choose to confirm a marriage that is being asserted outside the civil order. Especially if the ends being pursued by the marrying persons are nakedly material--the union they prefer (outside the licensing) is to be characterized with respect to the State as "unmarried" for the legal advantages.

Much better, in my opinion, to disadvantage oneself and suffer for Christ, rather than try to get the Church's approval for marriage on one hand, and the State's privileges for the unmarried at the same time. There's a materialistic bent here.

If the State turns around and recognizes, or the church recognizes, that a married estate exists de facto, each party is doing so for other ends than offering services for the establishment of that estate.

On the other hand, if it becomes manifestly the case that good social-order is dependent on my services to confirm a marriage, and the Church recognizes I am not acting as a "lone-ranger," that is when the church becomes the one institution committed to preserving recognizable marriage at all, I think I would gladly perform such a ceremony without a license (since the State is unlikely to be much in the licensing business at that point anyway).


----------



## Jack K (Jan 8, 2010)

Many good thoughts here. But it does seem to me we need to be careful before we embrace the idea of marriage that's recognized by the church but not by the larger society (that is, in our case, the state). Even though marriage is of God, I can't think of a biblical example of people whom God considered married while the larger society went unaware of this, except for obviously sinful examples like Abram and Sarai in Egypt. Part of the idea behind marriage is that it's public, legal and enforceable by society. To secretly marry is to make a lesser commitment, one without the social and legal ramifications that marriage should entail.

In many states, there might also be risks for a Christian whose marriage was not state-sanctioned. What if a spouse you thought was a believer is unfaithful and deserts you? There may be no legal recourse to prove fault. No leverage in suing for custody of children or monitary support. So where the state is willing to enforce consequences for matrimonial unfathfulness (and not all states do anymore), there are advantages to having the state sanction marriage.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 8, 2010)

One thought that may be in order is to share some thoughts from the early German Lutherans regarding magistrates that tamper with marriage. They argued that the magistrates who tamper with marriage against the dictates of natural law are to be considered as devils incarnate rather than lawful magistrates.


----------



## CatherineL (Jan 8, 2010)

This reminded me of an article I had read by Michael Pearl (disclaimer alert - I know probably a lot of people on here wouldn't agree with him on many many points - I mainly read his site because he and his wife have some excellent child training advice that has been helpful to us),
Article: Holy Matrimony - No Greater Joy Ministries

If you skim to the bottom part of the article, he talks about getting married without state marriage liscenses, and says that (at least in his state) it has worked to draw up a "marriage contract," and file that with the courthouse. He says his status and his children's (who have been married this way) has never been contested (I assume that means they identify themselves as married on tax returns, etc).

Personally I don't feel that using a state marriage licenses necessarily gives the State authority over my marriage the way he purports, but I thought it was possibly an interesting alternative.


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> On the other hand, if it becomes manifestly the case that good social-order is dependent on my services to confirm a marriage, and the Church recognizes I am not acting as a "lone-ranger," that is *when the church becomes the one institution committed to preserving recognizable marriage at al*l, I think I would gladly perform such a ceremony without a license (since the State is unlikely to be much in the licensing business at that point anyway).


 
Great stuff, as usual, Rev Buchanan. At what point does it become obvious that the church is the only institution committed to preserving 'recognizable' marriage? Aren't we getting close?


----------

