Marriage: In God's eyes vs in State's eyes

[Afterthought]

A valid marriage is a recognized leaving and cleaving of a man and a woman. Marriage is a civil ordinance, and in our day and age, such recognition is done through the State. Such is my understanding. Because of the civil nature of the ordinance and the social recoginition being done by the State, it would seem that the State has the say on who is married and who is divorced. There is no such status as a person being divorced by the State but still married "in God's eyes." In this matter, the eyes of God and the eyes of the State are one and the same.

1) Is this a correct way to view it? Why or why not?
2) If the State determines what is marriage and what is not, is it possible for people on a desert island to be married (being the only social group there) and then as soon as they rejoin society they become unmarried and must cease cohabitation?
3) Suppose the State for no reason at all ceased to recognize a lawfully established marriage (perhaps as part of a persecutory measure against Christians), would that mean the couple is no longer married and must cease living as though they were? This question alone seems to show there may be a difference between the eyes of God and eyes of the State when it comes to determining who is married and who is not.
4) Part of the leaving and cleaving is making a marriage covenant. If a couple made such a covenant and lived as married but were not recognized by the State, would they be considered married? Would the covenant they made have been null and void this whole time? If not considered married, I suppose that private intentions alone do not translate into a real marriage?

 

[ZackF]

Why is it is considered a civil ordinance? I don't understand it. The state witnesses or may or may not recognize a marriage but doesn't cause or not cause a marriage.

 

[Ed Walsh]

From Fisher's Catechism:
Q. 14. What is necessary to constitute marriage?
A. The voluntary and mutual consent of both parties, Genesis 24:58, 67.

I am not saying it is wrong to submit to the State requirements, but it seems marriage is a rather simple, yes, and I guess a cultural matter too.

 

[Dachaser]

A valid marriage is a recognized leaving and cleaving of a man and a woman. Marriage is a civil ordinance, and in our day and age, such recognition is done through the State. Such is my understanding. Because of the civil nature of the ordinance and the social recoginition being done by the State, it would seem that the State has the say on who is married and who is divorced. There is no such status as a person being divorced by the State but still married "in God's eyes." In this matter, the eyes of God and the eyes of the State are one and the same.

1) Is this a correct way to view it? Why or why not?
2) If the State determines what is marriage and what is not, is it possible for people on a desert island to be married (being the only social group there) and then as soon as they rejoin society they become unmarried and must cease cohabitation?
3) Suppose the State for no reason at all ceased to recognize a lawfully established marriage (perhaps as part of a persecutory measure against Christians), would that mean the couple is no longer married and must cease living as though they were? This question alone seems to show there may be a difference between the eyes of God and eyes of the State when it comes to determining who is married and who is not.
4) Part of the leaving and cleaving is making a marriage covenant. If a couple made such a covenant and lived as married but were not recognized by the State, would they be considered married? Would the covenant they made have been null and void this whole time? If not considered married, I suppose that private intentions alone do not translate into a real marriage?

The state may recognize as legal a gay wedding, but God does not see them as being actually married, but living in sin relationship still, correct?

 

[Afterthought]

A gay marriage is not a marriage, so the comparison does not hold. The State can say 2 + 2 = 5, but that will not make it so. I am talking about the State's saying, "This one is married." Or "This one is divorced."

Why is it is considered a civil ordinance?

There may be a better term, but I mean it in the sense that "marriage is common to all." It is not inherently a religious ordinance, such that a non-religious marriage is invalid.

I am not saying it is wrong to submit to the State requirements, but it seems marriage is a rather simple, yes, and I guess a cultural matter too.

On the one hand, this would seem to be the case, but on the other, marriage does not seem to be separated from social or legal recognition in the Bible. Of course, there are great difficulties that emerge if marital status is separated from the State, but I suppose great difficulties do not necessarily negate the fact of the matter.

 

[Herald]

Marriage is not a civil ordinance. Marriage is a God-given union (Gen. 2:23; Eph. 5:31). Just because counties in each state issue marriage licences, and other government entities attach legal and financial benefits to those who are legally married in the eyes of the state, does not make the state the definitive legal authority in regards to marriage. That said, the state does attach certain legal standing to individuals who it considers to be "legally married". Typically state-sanctioned marriages are taxed at more favorable rate. Whether a Christian couple can stand on conscience and refuse to get a marriage license before getting married is its own topic.

 

[MW]

A man "leaves" his father and mother and "cleaves" unto his wife. This means he is detached from one social unit and forms a new attachment to create another social unit. It would only require the consent of parents to form this new attachment. This will be affected, however, by the extension of societies and the formation of governments. If we accept the libertarian view that citizens voluntarily yield certain rights to the government, and marriage is one of these rights, then we are bound to recognise the power of government to provide the legal conditions of marriage. On the libertarian view the citizens retain the right to take back its consent and may go so far as to secede. In the event that the government starts persecuting its own citizens every libertarian would acknowledge the right of the citizen to take back the power of government. This would apply as equally to marriage as to anything else. Within the Christian tradition the libertarian power of dissent is better regulated by recognising the authority of lesser magistrates; but there would be disagreement as to how far a private citizen might go in the exercise of lawful resistance.

 

[Afterthought]

Whether a Christian couple can stand on conscience and refuse to get a marriage license before getting married is its own topic.

If the State is not the definitive authority, I don't see why not--or at least not in itself (there may be other factors not having to do with a valid marriage in and of itself).

If we accept the libertarian view that citizens voluntarily yield certain rights to the government, and marriage is one of these rights, then we are bound to recognise the power of government to provide the legal conditions of marriage.

Thank you. This was helpful. What reason have we to accept the libertarian view on this matter, even if checked by the concept of the lesser magistrate?

On the libertarian view the citizens retain the right to take back its consent and may go so far as to secede.

In taking the right back, are you simply referring to not paying heed to what the State says? I can see how disagreement may arise as to how far private citizens may go in resistance. I don't see anyone saying, "We're not married any more" just because the State does so for no reason; perhaps there is greater agreement on this one point.

Thoughts on how to analyze the situation with people getting married on a desert island? Are they transferring their right of marriage to the State when they get a license? Are they unmarried when they return to the State, until they get a license? etc.?


Interestingly, A.A. Hodge states,

"(3.) The civil law, however, has no authority to grant divorces upon any other grounds than those above defined as allowed by the law of God. Whenever they do so, as is constantly done in fact, the civil authorities put themselves into direct conflict with the law of God in the case. Hence all Christians and church courts are bound in such cases to disregard the judgment of the civil authority, and to regard and treat such unlawful divorces as null and void. And if the parties to a marriage unrighteously dissolved marry again, they are to be regarded and treated by those who fear God as living in those new marriages in the sin of adultery."

 

[MW]

What reason have we to accept the libertarian view on this matter, even if checked by the concept of the lesser magistrate?

I would suggest the type of reasons outlined in Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. That is, the law is king. This ensures the people do not assume a sovereignty in their own rights. Secular libertarianism makes a God of the social contract, which becomes as religiously oppressive as socialism. For a brief survey of Lex Rex and other reformed political writings on this topic I recommend David W. Hall's "The Reformation Roots of Social Contract." (It requires permission from the author in order to quote his speech, so I will forbear quoting from it out of respect to the author.)

In taking the right back, are you simply referring to not paying heed to what the State says?

That might not be possible without incurring the charge of disobedience. Political dissent requires a process which recognises the morality of government in the main but offers resistance to specific actions deemed illegal.

Thoughts on how to analyze the situation with people getting married on a desert island?

The scenario is exceptional, so we would not look to it as providing anything regulative for an ordinary situation. The ordinary situation would require legal status and that would be followed upon coming under territorial government.

 

[Afterthought]

That might not be possible without incurring the charge of disobedience. Political dissent requires a process which recognises the morality of government in the main but offers resistance to specific actions deemed illegal.

What do you think of A.A. Hodge's remarks in connection to this topic?

And it seems that in the States, there is no charge of disobedience, but the couple will "just" (in quotes because not having inheritances linked, or accountability for a marriage that ends in divorce, etc., is a big deal) not have all the legal benefits of a marriage (not be legally married). I am not entirely sure though. Regardless of whether there is a charge of disobedience (unless it makes a difference), would a couple who "took back" their right of marriage to get married without the State (even if there was no persecutory measure) be man and wife in the eyes of God? And so the church would have to deal with them as A.A. Hodge suggests (investigations for witnesses, etc.)?

 

[MW]

One cannot "take back" without cause. That would be civil disobedience.

The "couple" cannot take back, since the right was yielded by "father and mother." Some form of social recognition is essential to marital status.

The comment by Hodge deals with the status of an illegitimately divorced person. It would be a difficult and time-consuming scenario to navigate. At any rate, the State's right to legitimate "lawful marriage" would not be nullified by this scenario.

 

[Warren]

Curious, why crown a formula and not a Man?

Its my understanding most states, of the original 13 colonies, had state churches, and it wasn't until the 14th Amendment subverted the 10th, that the SCOTUS inclined to interpret the 1st Amendment as applicable to the states.

Its my contention that the states dropped their superficial trappings of church, but traces of this now primeval past remain - the state retains the right to license marriage.

 

[Afterthought]

The "couple" cannot take back, since the right was yielded by "father and mother." Some form of social recognition is essential to marital status.

What if the father and mother take the right back? It is still civil disobedience (unless they live in a place where, as in the U.S. if I am right, the thing done without is a legal marriage only by not taking a marriage license; it does not seem to be strictly disobedience but rather lack of participation), but there is social recognition from father and mother and perhaps whatever other community they dwell in. And except for legal matters, it is unlikely others would believe the marriage illegitimate (unless they believed the marriage license was necessary). Would they then be married in the eyes of God?

The comment by Hodge deals with the status of an illegitimately divorced person. It would be a difficult and time-consuming scenario to navigate. At any rate, the State's right to legitimate "lawful marriage" would not be nullified by this scenario.

Interesting. We can take the State's judgment as to who is married, but we cannot necessarily do the same with who is divorced. The reason for this asymmetry seems to be the parameters as to what is a lawful marriage/divorce in God's eyes. So that would mean an incestuous marriage would also be illegitimate and null in God's eyes; as would polygamy, bigamy, etc.; and would also require potentially difficult investigations. Is this following the reasoning correctly?

 

[MW]

I doubt the parents can take back the right of marriage on their own without being disobedient. They did not yield it on their own, but as a societal action. As individuals they can dissent and offer passive resistance, but it is doubtful whether they could actively resist without the power of an inferior magistrate.

Yes, investigation of details is necessary. Limited government requires us to take responsibility in self-government.

 

[Afterthought]

I doubt the parents can take back the right of marriage on their own without being disobedient. They did not yield it on their own, but as a societal action. As individuals they can dissent and offer passive resistance, but it is doubtful whether they could actively resist without the power of an inferior magistrate.

What if the government does not treat it as disobedience? By that I do not simply mean lack of enforcement of existing laws, but rather, there are no laws against marrying without a license: there simply is not legal recognition of that status as a marriage (thus nullifying the real meaning of "license;" but such loss of meaning seems to be understood.).

I am not sure what passive resistance looks like in this case. The only resistance I can see--aside from protest and voting (I'm not sure any hold that marriages with a license are invalidated; they just hold them unnecessary or an intrusion upon people's rights)--would be to give their children in marriage without getting a license. But this would seem to be active resistance.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding somewhat of what you are saying. The parents gave the right of giving their children in marriage to the State; so the children getting married without a license is like children getting married without their parents giving them in marriage (disobedience in both cases); so the marriage is not a marriage in God's eyes due to the disobedience (?). As a test case to check my understanding, suppose some people got married without a license (or without doing whatever is necessary for legal recognition under some government) but in every other way was a proper marriage: Are their marriage vows to God null and therefore they are living in a state of fornication? Likewise, suppose there was a society where the parents retained their right but the children married without parental consent: Are their marriage vows null and not binding on them?

 

[MW]

If the government does not treat it as disobedience then it appears no right has been yielded in the first place, which means there is nothing to take back.

To clarify, the State does not control marriage. In our Puritan tradition parental consent was still seen as necessary. The State is merely giving legal sanction to the marriage.

In the two test cases there is no real marriage. Civil government is ordained by God; parenthood is ordained by God.

 

[Afterthought]

To clarify, the State does not control marriage. In our Puritan tradition parental consent was still seen as necessary. The State is merely giving legal sanction to the marriage.

In the two test cases there is no real marriage. Civil government is ordained by God; parenthood is ordained by God.

Very interesting. I had known that parental consent was necessary for the propriety of the marriage (seeing how having no consent was viewed as stealing from the parents), but I had not known or had forgotten that parental consent was necessary for a couple to actually become man and wife in God's eyes. Do you have some Scriptural support for this (or someplace where someone discussed this in the past)? The closest I can get would be Genesis 2, and the idea that a father could nullify his daughter's vow, but I'm not sure how to connect the dots to extend parental consent being needed for a real marriage to take place in all cases.

If the government does not treat it as disobedience then it appears no right has been yielded in the first place, which means there is nothing to take back.

Ah, yes. I appreciate the precision of language. That certainly makes matters tricky in those cases where people get married without the State (in a State where marriages are not treated as disobedience): for if there is no legal protection of the marriage, divorces and inheritances, etc., will get messy should they ever occur, and because they are real marriages in the eyes of God, those people are required to honor it as such. This would also mean for the desert island case, the couple would still be married without getting a license in such a State. Very helpful for figuring cases out, although it makes the situation in the U.S. (so far as I understand the laws) all the more messy [edit: Disregard what I said about U.S. law. Further searching has left me puzzled as to the exact state of things here.].

Here's another thought: oftentimes, people do not care about parental consent anymore. They go ahead and get married legally. Are they really married in the eyes of God? Perhaps we could understand such cases as the parents implicitly giving up their right to their children (or to the State, if marriage without a license is viewed as disobedience), so long as the parents are not actively withholding consent? (I know some parents tell their more adult children that such things as marriage are entirely in the adult childrens' hands; this seems like an explicit giving up a right.)

 

[MW]

On parental consent, it may be easiest to refer to Thomas Boston's sermons on the Shorter Catechism. He writes on the duties of children:

That children ought not to dispose of themselves in marriage without the consent of parents, is the constant doctrine of the Protestant churches. And the reasons are these. (1.) The scripture gives the power of making marriages for children to the parents, Deut. 7:3; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:37, 38. Yea, even after parties have consented, it is left to the parent, whether to give his abused daughter to him that has been guilty with her, Exod. 22:16, 17. (2.) The most approved examples of marriage in scripture go this way, Gen. 24:3, 4; 28:1, 2; and 29:19; Judg. 14:2. (3.) Lastly, The reason is plain; for the child cannot give away any thing that is his parents’ against their will. Now, the child himself is the parents’, a part of their self-moving substance, in which they have a most undoubted property. So, when the devil was permitted to fall upon what was Job’s, he fell upon his children, and killed them in the first place. Yet, upon the other hand, no parent can force a child to marry such and such a person; for consent makes marriage, and that which is forced is no consent. The child must be satisfied as well as the parent, Gen. 24:57. So the short of it is, that the consent of both is necessary, and that the parent must neither force the child, nor the child rob the parent.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, I will give that some thought. It does appear to answer my last question: Yes, the consent was given to the State and/or to the children so the marriage would be valid. It would probably be an example of poor parental oversight because the consent was effectively given unconditionally and without knowing anything about the prospective man or woman (unless the child is an adult and all the more so if "moved out" and moved to a far away location), but it would still be consent.

Now, if a couple got married legally against their parent's consent (under ordinary circumstances) and therefore not really married in God's eyes, we now have the State against the parents and a huge mess if there are children involved. I suppose though that it is no different than the State legally marrying those who cannot be married according to God's law. "Passive resistance" here would be personally not recognizing the couple as actually married.

 

[arapahoepark]

Thanks, I will give that some thought. It does appear to answer my last question: Yes, the consent was given to the State and/or to the children so the marriage would be valid. It would probably be an example of poor parental oversight because the consent was effectively given unconditionally and without knowing anything about the prospective man or woman (unless the child is an adult and all the more so if "moved out" and moved to a far away location), but it would still be consent.

Now, if a couple got married legally against their parent's consent (under ordinary circumstances) and therefore not really married in God's eyes, we now have the State against the parents and a huge mess if there are children involved. I suppose though that it is no different than the State legally marrying those who cannot be married according to God's law. "Passive resistance" here would be personally not recognizing the couple as actually married.

I am not sure if I follow the last paragraph...

 

[Afterthought]

I am not sure if I follow the last paragraph...

The situation is one where people get married against their parents' consent. They are therefore not really married in God's eyes. Nevertheless, they have gotten married properly according to the State, so they are legally married. So what the State says is contrary to what God says, which amounts to the State being against what the parents say because the situation resulted from their lack of consent. This creates a mess if children are produced during the illegitimate "marriage" and if there is later repentance on the part of the people who married against their parents' will. The same situation and same mess also occurs when the State legally marries others who cannot be married (homosexuals, incestuous relationships, those who were not divorced for the reasons given in the Scriptures, etc.). A person can resist the State's decision on this: the person can simply personally refuse to recognize the two as actually married. Because it is simply a lack of personal recognition of the marriage-state, this is "passive resistance" to what the State has declared.

The situation given with the parents witholding their consent is qualified by "ordinary circumstances" because there is a possibility of the parents denying their consent without just cause.

On parental consent, it may be easiest to refer to Thomas Boston's sermons on the Shorter Catechism. He writes on the duties of children:

...So the short of it is, that the consent of both is necessary, and that the parent must neither force the child, nor the child rob the parent.

Does this assume that the child could rob the parent (and so two could be married in God's eyes without parental consent) but it would be wrong to do so?

 

[MW]

In that situation they are legally married. Lack of parental consent will likely result in the parents withholding their blessing unless the parents overcome their grievance. Children should consider how valuable parental blessing is to them, especially considering the fact that the God who blesses the marital union is the same God who gave them their life by blessing their parents' union.

 

[arapahoepark]

This thread is a bit dizzying if parental consent solely makes a marriage.

 

[Afterthought]

In that situation they are legally married. Lack of parental consent will likely result in the parents withholding their blessing unless the parents overcome their grievance. Children should consider how valuable parental blessing is to them, especially considering the fact that the God who blesses the marital union is the same God who gave them their life by blessing their parents' union.

This is what I originally thought was the case with parental consent and what it seems to me Thomas Boston proves. However, you had said earlier that...

To clarify, the State does not control marriage. In our Puritan tradition parental consent was still seen as necessary. The State is merely giving legal sanction to the marriage.

...suggesting that parental consent was necessary for the two to be married in God's eyes. However, it appears that they can be married in God's eyes without parental consent: it is wrong to do so though.

 

[MW]

In the Puritan tradition parental consent would be required by the State legalising the marriage. In the event that has been abandoned it depends on social and political factors as to what the parent might do. In our present situation it appears the parents really have no other recourse but to withhold their blessing, and even then there will be socialising pressure to give their blessing.

As to the word "wrong," that is bringing us back to moral as distinct from legal considerations. It becomes like the question of the Christian marrying the infidel. He ought not, but if he does it is nonetheless a legal marriage.

 

[Afterthought]

As to the word "wrong," that is bringing us back to moral as distinct from legal considerations. It becomes like the question of the Christian marrying the infidel. He ought not, but if he does it is nonetheless a legal marriage.

This is the point I've been trying to get at this whole thread. It may be wrong to marry without the State, but if one marries without the State, is that person really married and so can only be divorced for reasons given by Scripture? Does this change anything you have already said in this thread?

So what makes the marriage real (which is what I meant by "in God's eyes")? If the State says a marriage is real, does that make it so? If not, then I suppose, like A.A. Hodge mentions, we must investigate each case of marriage to determine its reality, and people could be legally divorced but in fact really still married to each other?

 

[Afterthought]

I was thinking about this some more, and it seems that if the State should be viewed as giving the parents' consent (their right of consent being given to the State), then two people who are otherwise validly married are in fact validly married, although they are being disobedient. Because a legal marriage oftentimes is done properly, the presumption is that the two are in fact married validly, so the church does not need to investigate everyone's marriages, unlike with some cases of divorce.

 

[MW]

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," Titus 3:1.

 

[Afterthought]

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," Titus 3:1.

Am I missing something? I thought we had already agreed that a marriage wrongly contracted was still valid, like the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever?

 

[arapahoepark]

Am I missing something? I thought we had already agreed that a marriage wrongly contracted was still valid, like the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever?

Is he not backing your view?