Taking marriage out of the government's hand

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by JohnP, Jun 21, 2015.

  1. The state of Michigan is reviewing legislation that would take marriage away from the government, and - with the exception of the issuance of the marriage license itself - putting it completely in the hands of the church.

    "This week, state Rep. Todd Courser, R-Lapeer, introduced three House bills that would end government involvement in performing weddings and require that all marriage certificates be signed by a religious leader.

    These bills take our public officials on all levels out of the equation..."
    - http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...rriage-legislation-religion-michian/29018125/

    Without getting into that topic that can't be discussed here, I was wondering what others thought of this in general - taking marriage out of the government and putting it into the church? To me, this seems like a good idea, since marriage is a covenant between two people and God.
    Big Moose and Great Fiction say Amen and like this.
  2. Hi John,
    Sounds good but like everything else in Michigan it will get twisted sooner or later.
    Too many wrecks on this strecth of road for people are going to fast - Michigans answer....well since they want to drive fast then we must raise the speed limit for they will drive fast any way.....Yea that will fix everything all right.

    Now another good Michigan fix --- from the age of 20 years old down will not be aloud to be paid min wasge. Yep it is up for vote again in the Mi goverment - they say a 20 year old and down does not need that much money so they should be required to be paid less. Yep that sure will help those college kids and high loans and hmmm better not have any families.

    Worse roads and bridges - shoot down all plans but agree to take money from the poor to fund the poor roads....yep michigans at it's best...

    Sorry John for being negative here but this state is strange.

    edit ........if it is in the hands of the churches............this could be worse.......some churches insist equal marriage for all. Yep thats a no brainer......
  3. Greetings:
    Good idea,but the enemy is too strong.It's now everybody's right to go into any bathroom.My idea
    is:churches issue a red paper with a small Christmas tree on it,after a marriage ceremony.Now,the satanics
    can't claim it's their constituteddown right,'cause they can't define it.
  4. Haha - You don't have to apologize to me; Except the few years I was in the military, I've lived here my entire life! It's actually better than it used to be. Granholm was a wreck as governor!

    Anyway, I don' think it could be worse. At least churches that still believe in marriage as defined by God would not be forced to perform marriages they don't believe in, or stop performing marriages entirely.
    Cturtle and Fish Catcher Jim say Amen and like this.
  5. I believe that government intervention with marriage is immoral; for it requires arbitrary coercive violence to be committed to person and property in order for it to materialize.
  6. I guess I'm not following you about the coercive violence . . .
  7. There is a danger in this bill, I would suggest, of changing our societies' perception of marriage in ways that are difficult to predict.

    I haven't read the bill myself, but the article states that the bill could "end government involvement in performing weddings and require that all marriage certificates be signed by a religious leader." This bill doesn't seem to take marriage "out of the government and into the church," but into the hands of "religious leaders". My thoughts are, what are the minimum requirements to be recognized as a "religious leader"?

    It seems like all you would have to do to condone/legitimize any manner of union is to invent a religion and be declared its leader. I think this is a plan that could easily backfire.
  8. Maybe government should not recognize marriage at all. Everything is a business relationship or a civil union contract for gov. purposes. Then those who want to want an unbiblical marriage can have it from whatever entity will "marry" them, and those who want a Biblical marriage can be married in a Bible believing church. Government can't act on marriage, just the civil union contracts.
  9. I have to admit it has gotten better in many ways since 03 and then in others ways gone down. Mostly the people and rural area's have changed for the worse. It seems those go out of their way to say hello and be friendly people have vanished and apartments and business's have taken over the tree's and wild life.
  10. Arbitrary power must "usurp delegated authority from God" in order to "force any constraint, requirements, interference, or regulations" upon a non-aggressor.

    Every individual according to Natural Rights from scripture is an "owner or vicegerent" regarding the individual corporeal body, all non-aggressive action, and legitimate property.

    Thus in order for a government to "commandeer" the management of marriage, they must "usurp Natural Rights" which is unjust, immoral and unethical.

    It is the "Voluntary Contract of Salvation (covenant)" that "offers" us as Christians an opportunity to "engage obedience regarding a Godly marriage" yet no government is needed to assist God in the matter; accountability for refusing this opportunity will be judged by God and Him alone. No man is worthy to sit upon his throne and force marriage constraints using force.

    Can you agree with me that our Christian strategy is to obey ruling authority to prevent offenses, to obey God unequivocally, to challenge society for ethics regarding ethical non-aggression, yet also persuade for salvation and righteousness unto Christ as we operate in His love?
  11. Yes.
  12. As Jim and i were talking about this...it came to my mind the verse about settling our differences prior to our neighbor taking us to court. In my thoughts this bill (if it will do all that is really said, and not have other things written into it) would be Biblical. If there is something that God needs to deal with in a particular church....then He can.

    It seems to me that perhaps all parties would be satisfied. Because there are plenty of churches that are very liberal when it comes to marriage. And any way to get the government out of a Believers life the better in my opinion.

    I agree of the possibility of backfiring...but it sure would take the pressure off of the pastors being forced to perform a marriage that they don't agree with. But, as i think about it, does that mean that marriages that are not between one man and one woman....are defined as a legal marriage?
  13. 1 John 4:4 says that greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world. So as the Body of Christ is unified....His (God's) power is made stronger.
  14. No such thing as "the Church" when talking about christian denominations and sects in America.
    It would be more honest to refer to "the many churches" or mainline churches or traditional denominations.

    As for the proposal that marriage to be only signed off/instituted by a religious pastor or Muslim iman or Hindu priest or Buddhist monk... etc
    1: there are plenty of wacko liberal progressive "christian" churches that would still marry homosexuals in their building and supposedly
    bless such an union before God. Sad, but true.
    2. Unbelievers would demand the right to civil ceremonies that were not religious in nature.

    Jesus and Bible prophecy warns those who love righteousness that in the last days the world - particularly the so-called "christian" world -
    would become more and more wicked. You cannot save the world from its headlong rush to perdition.
    The blind will lead the blind and both shall fall into the pit.
    In the mean time let's just get out their and preach the New Testament to those willing to listen.
    It is the work we are told to do as servants to our Lord and Saviour.
    Judgment and wrath is coming upon this world, let us preach the good news of salvation on a one to one basis and pray that
    some will hear and believe.
  15. We are waiting on the Supreme Court's decision - due any day now - for the answer to that.
  16. Would civil authorities still be responsible for administration of divorce or would that only be administered by the religious leader...

    Would you also authorize polygamy and animal marriage if the religion did? What about Homosexual marriage - which apparently is OK according to the National Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ....

    What sort of qualifications would be required? Can I say I am a "Religious leader" and I am good?

    I think that maybe this is opening a whole new can of worms....
    Cturtle likes this.
  17. I have been praying and rebuking it...... it will be no.

    Besides if they are setting the stage...then what's the point?
  18. If any definition or configuration of non-aggressive adult marriage is to be managed in the confines of arbitrary compulsion, then Natural Rights are eviscerated, liberty will be drastically reduced with one signature, and the old order of thrones will be reinstated to manage one of the churches most sacred ceremonies. Marriage is a non-aggressive moral issue, and if a supreme decision is justified by evil men to manage that which is non-aggressively moral or immoral, then the Bible as a whole will soon be subject to those who have thrashed ethics and has by violence thrashed the innocent for thousands of years.

    Government is not worthy, nor ethically just according to Natural Rights Theory to manage, define or regulate marriage, and a nation that gives up that liberty, offers up their sacred obedience to Christ to be managed by unworthy men.
  19. #19 JohnC, Jun 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
    Let's walk into this with our eyes completely open..... Let's thoughtfully consider Effects and side effects....

    We are rushing around trying to find an end-around to Court decisions that have fallen against us. Do not rush. Do not be HASTY in your desire to do SOMETHING now. We aren't thinking through consequences in our hasty rush....

    Our question needs to be:
    Will this NEW proposed change SOLVE the problem and PREVENT gay marriage - or will it simply pass the blame from Government to so called "Religious Leaders".....

    The answer to this is patently obvious.... No - it won't fix anything... In fact - it OPENS the door to all sorts of mischief that's NOT lawful today.... AND it allows Government to dump the GIANT SCANDAL that's in their laps onto US instead.... Thus - our answer ought to be "No - we do not support this"

    THE REAL solution to this is Judicial Reform.... By and large - this ENTIRE Gay Marriage debate has NOT been Legislated through the Legislative process... It's been JUDGED In Court by a VERY SMALL NUMBER of Activist Judges... Less than 25 men in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES have brought this change upon the ENTIRE UNITED STATES because they have taken it upon themselves to CREATE LAW and INVENT RIGHTS from the Bench........

    That's what we need to be going after.... but we aren't... It's not even on our radar screen....

    Here's what worries me.....

    By and large - the Christian church has been INCREDIBLY myopic in our views towards just about everything pertaining to "Civil Government" in the last 50 years.... That does not bode well - as both "Discernment of truth" and "Knowing what to do" is a Hallmark of the Holy Spirit.... Blindness typically goes hand in hand with Judgment... When we find ourselves taken completely by surprise time and time again - goaded into foolishly supporting BAD things and then throwing good money after bad in an attempt to stem the flood of consequences...... WHAT are we listening to - because it IS NOT GOD....

  20. Uh..it depends what they mean by church since there are so many and different churches have varying beliefs. I mean, church could mean mormon church, some of them practise polygamy! In america, they have church of scientology!
    I think if they said instead we taking marriage out of govt and putting couples (husband and wife) together with Jesus as they make their covenant vows I would agree with that....

Share This Page