Should a (married) woman vote, independent of her husband ?

[Mayflower]

Here in the Neterlands we have a reformed political party, which is the oldest political party (SGP) of the Netherlands.

In the past it was not normal that a (married) women should not vote for a particular canided in the the politics or church officers, and as i understood one of the reasons is that a women should not vote independed from her husband, and because the husband represents his wife, the husband is resposible for the voting.

Has this be a normal partise or is it still being done in some reformed churches ?

Any information would be apriactted !

 

[Knoxienne]

I know of only one church - a reformed baptist church in PA which practices this type of voting. I'm sure there are more - it's mostly independent churches which practice it. It's not normative in the major reformed denominations in the U.S. All communicate members - men, women and children who've made their professions of faith in these churches vote. However, Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections. Hope that helps.

 

[Scott1]

In the past it was not normal that a (married) women should not vote for a particular canided in the the politics or church officers, and as i understood one of the reasons is that a women should not vote independed from her husband, and because the husband represents his wife, the husband is resposible for the voting.

Am I understanding you to say that, in your country, a married woman must vote in a political election (not referring to church voting) the way her husband wishes, or may not vote (because only her husband represents the family), or that her husband must go with her to the polls?

(Also, understand it's difficult for an American to fathom a "religious political party")

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I know of only one church - a reformed baptist church in PA which practices this type of voting. I'm sure there are more - it's mostly independent churches which practice it. It's not normative in the major reformed denominations in the U.S. All communicate members - men, women and children who've made their professions of faith in these churches vote. However, Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections. Hope that helps.

The Reformed Church of the United States also practices Male Head-of-Household voting.

 

[calgal]

 

[Craig]

My wife writes down all the people I have asked her to vote for...and she votes for them (or abstains where I've told her to as that has been the case).

I'm a pragmatist on this issue...I believe a husband is the federal head, and women should not be given an unfeminine "right" to vote...but I am confident that my wife is following my lead...so now a godly vote will count as two since our nation will not recognize federalism begins in the home.

 

[Hamalas]

I'm curious, why are you so shocked?

 

[calgal]

I'm curious, why are you so shocked?

If a church truly believes the only vote that counts is the male's vote, then why let the "little ladies" vote at all?

 

[LawrenceU]

Are we talking about ecclesiastical voting or political voting?

Either way the 19th amendment and its like undermines the federal headship of the husband. I know that is not a popular stance and I am now seen as a chauvinist.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

It seems to me that if the husband and wife are believers and the wife is seeking to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, there should rarely (never) be a situation where she is voting for something which he is not agreeable to in the first place. Of course, that does not mean there can't be discussion about which would be the best direction, however, a house divided against itself can't stand, so I think the wife should submit to the husband in this area if there is disagreement.

 

[jwithnell]

I am rather surprised that any reformed Presbyterian denomination would have any voting at all. Presbyterianism is a representative form of government in which members are occasionally asked to affirm something but it is (or should be) a far cry from a popular vote. That said, I would be perfectly comfortable having my husband give my affirmation (or non-affirmation) as head of our household.

 

[he beholds]

My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.

 

[Montanablue]

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.

 

[TimV]

My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.

Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her

 

[he beholds]

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.

Kathleen, really it is hardly an issue, in America at least. I doubt you'd fall for the man who would be so concerned for his own headship that he'd be unconcerned for your opinions. I do not think Scripture demands that wives have the same opinions as husbands, so for a husband to say that is his own law. But if my husband did say that, it would be my duty to submit, which is reason number 16,089 that I'm glad married the right guy.

My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.

Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her

That should be true of any husband! (Not that all women have my political common sense...)
I mean, why marry someone whom you fear you need to monitor like a child? Don't people marry people they trust?

 

[OPC'n]

I didn't read the responses but

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I am rather surprised that any reformed Presbyterian denomination would have any voting at all. Presbyterianism is a representative form of government in which members are occasionally asked to affirm something but it is (or should be) a far cry from a popular vote. That said, I would be perfectly comfortable having my husband give my affirmation (or non-affirmation) as head of our household.

Thankfully, it is the Reformed tradition which brought voting back into the Church. There are occasions where a congregational vote is essential, for instance calling a pastor. You would not want presbytery just imposing a pastor upon you, would you? And I for one would be very concerned if all the women opposed a pastor while all the men supported him, and the women never got their full privilege of communicant membership to vote. And if women are full communicant members in the body, then why should their input not be heard? The only qualification to enter into full communicant life is a credible profession of faith. It is the ordained offices which are restricted to qualified men. Let's not create an artifical level of church heirarchy where Scripture has not done so. Men are heads of the homes, but Christ is head of the Church. The husband and wife both have equal access to Christ and His Spirit, both equipped by him to participate in the daily life of the body.

We need to remember that voting is one indication (of many) of the Holy Spirit working in the congregation. That's how the God confirms one's gifts and calling to an ordained office. If the same Spirit is at work among the congregation, equipping everyone with the necessary gifts and graces to help the body function, then it shouldn't matter what their sex is regarding voting.

I'm certianly open to any correction in this, but I don't see any problem women voting in congregational life. If husband and wife cannot agree in conscience, then it's time to talk, or time to respectfully disagree on that issue, not bring down the hammer of male headship.

 

[Craig]

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.

I imagine you would marry a godly man...but you do realize what you said means you would rather identify your headship with your father rather than your future husband...I don't remember Paul saying "Wives, submit yourselves to your fathers".

 

[Montanablue]

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.

Kathleen, really it is hardly an issue, in America at least. I doubt you'd fall for the man who would be so concerned for his own headship that he'd be unconcerned for your opinions. I do not think Scripture demands that wives have the same opinions as husbands, so for a husband to say that is his own law. But if my husband did say that, it would be my duty to submit, which is reason number 16,089 that I'm glad married the right guy.

My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.

Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her

That should be true of any husband! (Not that all women have my political common sense...)
I mean, why marry someone whom you fear you need to monitor like a child? Don't people marry people they trust?

I find your answer very relieving. You are right - I highly doubt that my personality would allow me to fall for someone who could not respect my opinions. And, like I said, if I did, my father would probably sit me down for a little heart-to-heart.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 09:38:08 EST-----

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.

I imagine you would marry a godly man...but you do realize what you said means you would rather identify your headship with your father rather than your future husband...I don't remember Paul saying "Wives, submit yourselves to your fathers".

I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. I meant that my father would strongly advise against marrying such a man in the first place. Once I'm married, my father has absolutely no intention of meddling in my husband and my affairs. I would hope that you would agree that a father should advise his daughter as to any possible concerns he has with a potential husband.

 

[Knoxienne]

The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty. The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.

Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family! Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!

 

[Tim]

I respond to no one in particular.

If a husband and wife vote differently, they are effectively voting against each other. How is this unity? It would be far better to come to an agreement as to what their values are as a couple, rather than to oppose each other in the political (or ecclesiastical realm).

Having said that, will there really be that many situations when a husband and wife disagree on a political vote, if in fact they have the same confessional beliefs? But if there were such a disagreement, why would the wife not submit to her husband's leadership on this issue?

Why must a wife be independent from her husband on political matters but not the other spheres of life? Does not the leadership of the husband extend to all areas of life?

And of course, a godly husband will ensure that his wife isn't required to go against her conscience; that is part of loving leadership. But leadership it still is.

 

[Hamalas]

 

[he beholds]

The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty. The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.

Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family! Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!

So policy-wise, perhaps it would have been better with only adult males voting. But since that is not our nation's laws, I don't think we should live like it were. Especially if you believe that your vote counts (which I don't). So are you saying that your house only uses one vote? Bill votes, but if he's busy, you vote for him?
If my husband were busy and asked me to make my vote for him, I would be able to do that because I am so apathetic. But if he were able to make his own vote, and I was available to make mine, I would vote for whom I would like best.
I don't understand the point of the woman not voting just because her husband did. Wouldn't you want two votes???

I can see a big deal if you and your husband are voting separately for church things, but not for political.

And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?

 

[LawrenceU]

Jessi, no one is saying that women should not vote in political elections. My wife and I discuss and study issues and candidates. If we disagree, which is exceptionally rare, she follows my lead and votes how I am convicted. Since the nation has given women suffrage she votes. Our family has two votes. It would be unwise not to allow her to vote in this context.

 

[OPC'n]

Well, I'm not married (right now I'm glad!), but I highly doubt that women lose their brain once married. I'm sure that men and women who do marry have the same moral value and so would vote basically the same way. I just see this as men treating their wives like they are four years old. Why not trust that your wife has the same reformed thought as you and will use her God-given brain to vote appropriately?

 

[Knoxienne]

The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty. The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.

Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family! Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!

So policy-wise, perhaps it would have been better with only adult males voting. But since that is not our nation's laws, I don't think we should live like it were. Especially if you believe that your vote counts (which I don't). So are you saying that your house only uses one vote? Bill votes, but if he's busy, you vote for him?
If my husband were busy and asked me to make my vote for him, I would be able to do that because I am so apathetic. But if he were able to make his own vote, and I was available to make mine, I would vote for whom I would like best.
I don't understand the point of the woman not voting just because her husband did. Wouldn't you want two votes???

I can see a big deal if you and your husband are voting separately for church things, but not for political.

And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?

Okay, let's say that happened, then. No, I would not, no more than I would rob a bank if my husband told me to because we needed money. If my husband asks me to do something that is unlawful, I am required to not submit to him, but submit to God's Word. (Acts 5:29)

I can understand how you can ask, don't you want two votes? Yes, it's reasonable to ask that, and I've thought the same way. But we must remember that biblical elections are not about numbers. It's just that in our society we are so used to numbers and majorities being the real deal and what's important. It's about big numbers and it's about who can win, rather than what's right, whether the man wins or not. God wants us to vote for godly people and trust Him for the results.

 

[Montanablue]

And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?

This does happen. My father consistently votes for more liberal candidates than my mother. (Although he did not vote for Obama as he is staunchly pro-life.)

 

[he beholds]

What I have issue with here is the idea that people might think there is Scriptural warrant for all wives to agree with their husbands on all issues.

I do see Scriptural warrant for wives to submit to husbands on all issues--but a husband does not have to make this issue one that requires submission.

I could see if your wife was going to sin by voting for someone who kills babies, then you can step in and say, "To do that is a sin." BUT, that seems like an extraordinary case. In most cases, I would think your adult wife's opinion matters as much as yours. We're not talking about having democracy in the house. We're talking about having differing opinions and creating matters of submission that should be matters of liberty.

 

[LawrenceU]

Well, I'm not married (right now I'm glad!), but I highly doubt that women lose their brain once married. I'm sure that men and women who do marry have the same moral value and so would vote basically the same way. I just see this as men treating their wives like they are four years old. Why not trust that your wife has the same reformed thought as you and will use her God-given brain to vote appropriately?

No one is saying that women lose their brains. My wife surely didn't! But, God ordained families as the structure that he works through on this earth. Our society has become highly individual and egalitarian; so much so that a great many Christians do not see the significance of the family, nor do they see the blessing of marriage in the historic Christian sense. Not all social 'progress' is progress.

 

[he beholds]

Jessi, no one is saying that women should not vote in political elections. My wife and I discuss and study issues and candidates. If we disagree, which is exceptionally rare, she follows my lead and votes how I am convicted. Since the nation has given women suffrage she votes. Our family has two votes. It would be unwise not to allow her to vote in this context.

But what do you do with how she is convicted??????