Married in the eyes of GOD
- Thread starter Amour
- Start date
gone_fishing
New Member
gone_fishing
New Member
I think you are missing my point as well. My point is that at least in the US - getting married without a marriage license IS illegal and since we are told to obey the laws of the land, a marriage that is NOT legal would not under any circumstances be so "in the eyes of God".
Bunny77
New Member
Agreed.
OP, like someone else said, I think you might have gotten different answers if you'd asked, "Who has had a commitment ceremony in place of a government-recognized marriage? Why did you choose this route?"
A lot of folks find the statement "married in the eyes of God," as contradictory because of the above statement (that God tells us to obey the law, so a marriage in the eyes of God includes getting a legal certificate by this definition), so they are probably going to answer accordingly.
Caramela
New Member
I agree. I think it was the wording as well.
UmSumayyah
Well-Known Member
I know of one personally, and have heard of others.
And they all got hosed.
And they all got hosed.
Amour
Well-Known Member
I did ask that, by putting the legal parts in I was clarifying that by commitment ceremony it would = non legal.
Why should it become a debate when I wasn't asking about opinions?
Amour
Well-Known Member
Amour
Well-Known Member
I don't think a commitment ceremony is disobedient to law!? If you accept that in law you are single, and therefore do not seek the priviledges, recognition etc that is granted to those who are married according to the law then how can you be seen to be disobedient?
Now if you try to re define what can/ should denote a legal marriage and/ or try and gain the priviledges attached to a legal marriage then I can understand how one could be said to be considered to be rebelling against the law.
Amour
Well-Known Member
The law/ government do not make it an obligation to get married; thus not getting married according to law surely can not be disobedient, right?
But also (off topic) I think this only applies to laws that are Godly, I don't think God would want people to obey laws created by tryants for tyrannic purposes. The bible explores times in which the laws of the goverment/ rules were disobeyed when it was for a better good. e.g. Acts 17
I'm sure guidance from the Lord supersedes laws created by man.
Bunny77
New Member
The disobedience part would come by saying that you were "married in the eyes of God," when you are not... cause you can't speak for God (if we're speaking of the Judeo-Christian God). There is nothing in either religious tradition that approves of or sanctions non-legal marriage and calls it "being married in the eyes of God."
You just aren't married.
So no, you wouldn't be disobeying any laws of the land you happen to live in, but by calling yourself "married" when you are not, it would likely be problematic if you are a religious person or speaking of God in the context of your union.
Again, I personally do not care what people choose to do -- marry, not marry, whatever -- it's all good to me. Seriously, it is.
I just say call a spade a spade. If you (general you) don't want to get married, then don't call it a "marriage in the eyes of God." Have a commitment ceremony, do whatever, but don't call it a marriage. You chose not to get married, as is your right, so don't call your union a marriage.
Y'all are committed, bonded for life, whatever... but y'all are not married in God's eyes (at least the Judeo-Christian God... I can't speak on other faiths/beliefs.)
UmSumayyah
Well-Known Member
More like-- "husband MIA and eventually the "wife" realizes what's really up" marriages.
Thanks for responding, I was beginning to think that everyone in this thread has me on "ignore" and can't see my responses.
More like-- "husband MIA and eventually the "wife" realizes what's really up" marriages.
Ya think she knows better now?
Thanks for responding, I was beginning to think that everyone in this thread has me on "ignore" and can't see my responses.
We see ya' girl. Well, at least I do.
Amour
Well-Known Member
The disobedience part would come by saying that you were "married in the eyes of God,"
How is this disobebying authority/ government!?!
when you are not... cause you can't speak for God (if we're speaking of the Judeo-Christian God). There is nothing in either religious tradition that approves of or sanctions non-legal marriage and calls it "being married in the eyes of God."
You just aren't married.
Yes, so you and the state would say
So no, you wouldn't be disobeying any laws of the land you happen to live in, but by calling yourself "married" when you are not, it would likely be problematic if you are a religious person or speaking of God in the context of your union.
Why? When do you believe a legal marriage becomes a marriage/ union in the eyes of God?
Again, I personally do not care what people choose to do -- marry, not marry, whatever -- it's all good to me. Seriously, it is.
I just say call a spade a spade. If you (general you) don't want to get married, then don't call it a "marriage in the eyes of God." Have a commitment ceremony, do whatever, but don't call it a marriage. You chose not to get married, as is your right, so don't call your union a marriage.
Y'all are committed, bonded for life, whatever... but y'all are not married in God's eyes (at least the Judeo-Christian God... I can't speak on other faiths/beliefs.)
Why would a couple not be married in the eyes of God, if they have made a promise to another in front of God. What differentiates couple A from making a commitment to one another in front of God and ask for God's blessing then precede to sign papers etc, to couple B who make a commitment to one another in front of God and ask for God's blessing without preceding to sign papers etc!? (Aside from the legal aspects!?)
Just because you and the state wouldn't think that a couple who decide to omit the laws of the land from their union are married does not mean it will not be accepted by God.
My thinking comes from this line of though... Someone who marries another for worldly again e.g. money or a passport say at the court house/ registrary office (in my opinion) are not more married in the eyes of God than a couple who marry contrary to the laws of the land but with a true heartfelt commitment to one another.
Bunny77
New Member
I'm gonna bow out of this because despite your insistence that you only wanted to know what a commitment ceremony is, this has turned into a different topic. You are arguing for the legitimacy of a non-married relationship as equal to a married one, which is your right, but I don't know why you are saying people are missing the point in your thread when you are clearly doing more than just asking a question.
You weren't just asking a simple question, you're making an argument that these are equal, but then you're saying that "we don't get the point" of your thread when others say that the two choices are not equal and give reasons why.
"Marriage" is a legal term in our society (at least the US), so if you didn't have a legal ceremony then you aren't married, no matter what you want to call it or how "heartfelt" you feel your commitment is.
You aren't married. It is what it is. Shoot, that's why gay couples are fighting for the legal right to marry because they KNOW that no matter how close their relationships are and how real and heartfelt their unions are... they AIN'T married!
I give them credit for at least knowing the deal and recognizing that being married is so much more than "committed" and that's why they want the right to get that piece of paper.
And all I'm saying is that you don't know what is accepted by God, so please don't say you do and please don't speak for God.
I don't know either because I'm not God, but I can at least point to examples to show what IS accepted by God as marriage and it's making a commitment under the guidelines of what each individual society considered as official or legal.
(Again, this is all in a Judeo-Christian context... if you're speaking outside of that, then hey... I have nothing to say!)
Now, to answer the question, I don't know any people who did this personally, but I think back to Brandy's relationship that she called a marriage, but when she got "divorced," reporters looked for a divorce certificate and couldn't find one.
She then had to admit that she wasn't married, but she and ole boy had a "spiritual union." Okay...
Then Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds... whatever that was!
Amour
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna bow out of this because despite your insistence that you only wanted to know what a commitment ceremony
erm... the original intention of my original OP if you look back was not to find out what a commitment ceremony is, I wanted to find out whether or not anyone had had one.
is, this has turned into a different topic. You are arguing for the legitimacy of a non-married relationship as equal to a married one, which is your right, but I don't know why you are saying people are missing the point in your thread when you are clearly doing more than just asking a question.
All that I have been saying recently has been off my originally intended point because I was responding to the points made. And I have emphasized time and time again that I accept that a commitment ceremony is not equal to a formal/legal marriage, I have accepted that parties would still remain single in the eyes of God and will not get the same priviledges given to married couples automatically i.e. you can set up trusts, wills etc.
You weren't just asking a simple question, you're making an argument that these are equal, but then you're saying that "we don't get the point" of your thread when others say that the two choices are not equal and give reasons why.
"Marriage" is a legal term in our society (at least the US), so if you didn't have a legal ceremony then you aren't married, no matter what you want to call it or how "heartfelt" you feel your commitment is.
I accept that. I wasn't trying to find out what the position would be in society; I wasn't even interested in whether people would deem it to be a union in the eyes of God, but merely wanted to know WHETHER ANYONE HAD HAD SUCH A CEREMONY
.
You aren't married. It is what it is. Shoot, that's why gay couples are fighting for the legal right to marry because they KNOW that no matter how close their relationships are and how real and heartfelt their unions are... they AIN'T married!
In the UK, Gay and Lesbian people are able to go down the legal route of being 'married' namely a civil partnership - legally this entitles the couple most of if not all the same priviledges entitled to hetrosexual married couples; according to the law they are 'married'.
I give them credit for at least knowing the deal and recognizing that being married is so much more than "committed" and that's why they want the right to get that piece of paper.
And all I'm saying is that you don't know what is accepted by God, so please don't say you do and please don't speak for God.
No where in any of my posts did I speak for God, so please do not tell me that I did so. I did however say I couldn't see no reason for why God wouldn't accept a simple spirtual union albeit not legal - I have no problem in saying that, as I don't have any problems saying God has blessed me etc.
I don't know either because I'm not God, but I can at least point to examples to show what IS accepted by God as marriage and it's making a commitment under the guidelines of what each individual society considered as official or legal.
(Again, this is all in a Judeo-Christian context... if you're speaking outside of that, then hey... I have nothing to say!)
Now, to answer the question, I don't know any people who did this personally, but I think back to Brandy's relationship that she called a marriage, but when she got "divorced," reporters looked for a divorce certificate and couldn't find one.
She then had to admit that she wasn't married, but she and ole boy had a "spiritual union." Okay...
Then Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds... whatever that was!
I didn't know Brandy and Eddie Murphy had commitment ceremonies; I will have a look on the internet for that.
Bunny77
New Member
Eddie had the ceremony, but I don't believe Brandy did. The Eddie-Tracey one was pretty recent too, like last month.
Brandy didn't have a ceremony (as far as I know). She fell off the map for a minute and then she reappeared a few years later with a baby girl and a "husband" and was talking about being married.
Then a year later, she said she was getting divorced, and then that's when she had to admit she never got married because no one had the divorce certificate (or marriage certificate). She and her man just broke up.
I think that since she had developed this "good girl" image, she couldn't just show up one day with a baby out of wedlock, so she lied and said she was married and had a baby. Whether any ceremony took place to celebrate her "commitment," I'm not sure, but I think it was simply a PR move to say she was married when she was not so she could escape scrutiny.
P.S. Gays in the US can get civil rights and recognition of their partnerships through their employers for medical benefits, etc... it's called domestic partnerships and they can get paperwork proving that.
What was interesting though was a case in San Francisco where the mayor decided to issue marriage certificates (until a court stepped in and said it was illegal). Thousands of gay couples in legal domestic partnerships camped out for days in the rain to get legally married... even though they had papers recognizing their civil unions, the idea of being married was that important to them that they did that.
I just thought it was really an interesting statement in a general sense about the importance that people in the US put on legal marriage, no matter what they say about it just being a piece of paper, or whatever. The fact that folks would sleep in the rain for that piece of paper spoke volumes to me.
(Shoot, I'm not camping out in no rain!!! I'm not messing up my hurr!)
Last edited:
gone_fishing
New Member
Editted for bad attitude and delivery. :/
The law/government (here) does not make it an obligation to get married but it most definitely makes it an obligation to get a marriage license before getting married.
I posted a few statutes on earlier pages which even describes a punishment for marrying without a marriage license.
The law (here) further says if you did not register for and complete a marriage license then you are NOT married.
Therefore (here) if you conduct a ceremony without a license - it would be classified as a misdemeanor (as I posted earlier).
No, you would probably find no DA to prosecute that case - they would just say you aren't married. But, so long as it is on the books as a statutes it is in fact, still a law.
The Bible does talk about times when it is better to disobey laws but is this one of those times? Are you serious?
I posted about this previously. The only time God indicates it it proper to disobey laws if IF the law means you would be sinning against Him. That is the ONLY time it is allowed. It is not a convenience given to you any time you think you want to disobey a law.
I would not have brought God into this if you hadn't said "in the eyes of God".
But since you brought Him into this: "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled..." (Heb. 13:4).
Interestingly, this verse links the idea of marriage to legal custom. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we are to be in subjection to governing authorities. In other words, we are to obey the laws of the land because God has placed those people in power. Then, in verse 7, he writes, "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
We know that marriage is honorable and the Bible commands us to render it honor properly. Further, it shows that we are to obey the governing laws and respect the customs associated with Biblical marriage.
Our laws recognize the holy union of marriage (point number 1), require it to be between a man and a woman (point number 2), recognizes the covenant nature of marriage by sanctioning clergy to perform marriage ceremonies (point number 3), and requires witnesses (point number 4). Therefore, in order to give marriage proper honor and to render the proper respect to the governing authorities, legal marriage is both required and appropriate. It does not follow that legal marriage is not necessary in today's society.
Taking all into account, the Bible clearly shows that an official marriage ceremony governed by clergy is entering into marriage appropriately. Jesus blessed official marriage by performing His first miracle at the marriage feast in Cana (John 2) . His relationship with the church is compared to a bridegroom and his bride, again showing the holiness of the marriage relationship.
It is an unfortunate commentary on our society that we've reduced the idea of marriage to one of comfort.
I would question the sincerity of the person who claimed they wanted to be married but was looking for a "loophole" to prevent the legal responsibilities that come along with marriage. If one truly is serious in vowing "until death do us part", then why would they be resistant to making that vow legal? Many times people are betrayed by their concern for the consequences of their actions. The consequences of dissolving a legal marriage are much less than they were, but are still significant. It could be those consequences are what bothers folks, which means they aren't entering a covenant relationship, but merely a temporary agreement -and that isn't marriage.
I hope this has helped you understand what Biblical marriage is and why it is important and how it relates to the law. I will be praying for you. May God bless you as you continue to seek Him.
Last edited:
You are reaching and twisting and justifying.And not often would I make such a blunt statement.
The law/government (here) does not make it an obligation to get married but it most definitely makes it an obligation to get a marriage license before having a ceremony (as I posted in the general statutes on previous pages). The law (here) says if you did not register for and complete a marriage license then you are NOT married. Therefore (here) if you have a ceremony without a license - it would be classified as a misdemeanor (as I posted earlier). No, you would probably find no DA to prosecute that case - they would just say you aren't married. But, so long as it is on the books as a statutes it is in fact, still a law.
The Bible does talk about times when it is better to disobey laws but is this one of those times? Are you serious?
I posted about this previously. The only time God indicates it it proper to disobey laws if IF the law means you would be sinning against Him. That is the ONLY time it is allowed. It is not a convenience given to you any time you think you want to disobey a law.
You are very frustrating.
Why not just say you are going to do what you want to do regardless of what is right? Then we couldn't argue with that, now could we
You've saved me some typing.
Farida
Well-Known Member
This is very interesting. I always know there is something more to "marriage" than commitment and legality ( a piece of paper). That's why I can never (I'm sorry if this is your view, but this is my opinion) see how people who claim to love each other and be committed to each other are so afraid of something that supposedly doesn't mean "anything" because they have it all. I always argue with people about it. I can't explain it, but cases like the above are another instance that explains the value of marriage.
Amour
Well-Known Member
Editted for bad attitude and delivery. :/
The law/government (here) does not make it an obligation to get married but it most definitely makes it an obligation to get a marriage license before getting married.
I understand that, I accept that if someone wanted to get married in the traditional sense then they would need a marriage licence; but I was mainly refering to those who may decide to get married in the unconventional sense, where I believe a marriage licence would not be required because it wouldn't be regarded as a traditional/ proper formal marriage rather a mere ceremony.
I posted a few statutes on earlier pages which even describes a punishment for marrying without a marriage license.
The law (here) further says if you did not register for and complete a marriage license then you are NOT married.
Therefore (here) if you conduct a ceremony without a license - it would be classified as a misdemeanor (as I posted earlier).
No, you would probably find no DA to prosecute that case - they would just say you aren't married. But, so long as it is on the books as a statutes it is in fact, still a law.
The Bible does talk about times when it is better to disobey laws but is this one of those times? Are you serious?
No I personally do not believe that going against traditional/ legal marriage customs is an instance in which disobeying laws would be considered to be justified. When making that point I said (I think or should have said) off topic i.e. not in relation to the topic being discussed i.e. was providing reference to where there are times in which disobeying government is justified i.e. Acts 17
I posted about this previously. The only time God indicates it it proper to disobey laws if IF the law means you would be sinning against Him. That is the ONLY time it is allowed. It is not a convenience given to you any time you think you want to disobey a law.
I would not have brought God into this if you hadn't said "in the eyes of God".
But since you brought Him into this: "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled..." (Heb. 13:4).
Interestingly, this verse links the idea of marriage to legal custom. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we are to be in subjection to governing authorities. In other words, we are to obey the laws of the land because God has placed those people in power. Then, in verse 7, he writes, "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
We know that marriage is honorable and the Bible commands us to render it honor properly. Further, it shows that we are to obey the governing laws and respect the customs associated with Biblical marriage.
Our laws recognize the holy union of marriage (point number 1), require it to be between a man and a woman (point number 2), recognizes the covenant nature of marriage by sanctioning clergy to perform marriage ceremonies (point number 3), and requires witnesses (point number 4). Therefore, in order to give marriage proper honor and to render the proper respect to the governing authorities, legal marriage is both required and appropriate. It does not follow that legal marriage is not necessary in today's society.
Taking all into account, the Bible clearly shows that an official marriage ceremony governed by clergy is entering into marriage appropriately. Jesus blessed official marriage by performing His first miracle at the marriage feast in Cana (John 2) . His relationship with the church is compared to a bridegroom and his bride, again showing the holiness of the marriage relationship.
It is an unfortunate commentary on our society that we've reduced the idea of marriage to one of comfort.
I would question the sincerity of the person who claimed they wanted to be married but was looking for a "loophole" to prevent the legal responsibilities that come along with marriage. If one truly is serious in vowing "until death do us part", then why would they be resistant to making that vow legal? Many times people are betrayed by their concern for the consequences of their actions. The consequences of dissolving a legal marriage are much less than they were, but are still significant. It could be those consequences are what bothers folks, which means they aren't entering a covenant relationship, but merely a temporary agreement -and that isn't marriage.
I hope this has helped you understand what Biblical marriage is and why it is important and how it relates to the law. I will be praying for you. May God bless you as you continue to seek Him.
Thank you
....................
Amour
Well-Known Member
Don't be sorry this is not my view, believe it or not i'm VERY traditional when it comes to marriage
. When I decide to get married I want to do it so it is recognised in everyway.But I wouldn't think anything less of anyone who chooses to perform this type of union/ ceremony providing it was for the right reasons. Although I wouldn't choose to perform this ceremony I don't think that God would view it any less valid than a ceremony fully constituted in law - but thats just me.
eta: In relation to the text highlighted in red. Not everyone who would have this sort of committment would be doing it because they are afraid of something or they want to mess around etc; people enter into formal marriages uncommitted and mess around all the time. There are loads of people who never get married and have been together for years and years but decide to remain single - in a realist sense, it doesn't mean they are less committed. Prima facie those who go ahead and legalise their union seem more committed but this is not necessarily so. I think alot of people particularly women feel secure in their relationship just because they have Mrs. in front of their name and a ring on their finger - again thats just me; and i'll be the first to admit that my thinking alot of the time is considered abit coooky
Last edited:
dinaaike
New Member
Oooooooooooooooohhhh!! Okay, then I totally misunderstood. I got caught up in the replies on justification/preference.
To answer, not personally, no. I have heard about people who have, ie. Brandy, and other obscure third-hand my-friends-cousin's-sister type deals. They usually--according to what I've heard--do something without family or friends present. Just some internet-certified preacher/pastor, or whatever, standing at an alter or on a beach and say their vows, kiss and go home.
A couple of times I've heard about a couple "saying their vows" under a tree or something, but those stories ended in "but apparently he was just saying that so she'd sleep with him", so I don't think those count.
The first time I have seen a suggested "wedding" is on the link you left for Puerto Vallarta. I know it's not much, but I hope that's somewhat of an answer.
Farida
Well-Known Member
Don't be sorry this is not my view, believe it or not i'm VERY traditional when it comes to marriage
But I wouldn't think anything less of anyone who chooses to perform this type of union/ ceremony providing it was for the right reasons. Although I wouldn't choose to perform this ceremony I don't think that God would view it any less valid than a ceremony fully constituted in law - but thats just me.
eta: In relation to the text highlighted in red. Not everyone who would have this sort of committment would be doing it because they are afraid of something or they want to mess around etc; people enter into formal marriages uncommitted and mess around all the time. There are loads of people who never get married and have been together for years and years but decide to remain single - in a realist sense, it doesn't mean they are less committed. Prima facie those who go ahead and legalise their union seem more committed but this is not necessarily so. I think alot of people particularly women feel secure in their relationship just because they have Mrs. in front of their name and a ring on their finger - again thats just me; and i'll be the first to admit that my thinking alot of the time is considered abit coooky
I understand what you're saying, but IMO people refuse to wear the "married" label for a reason. It may not be obvious what reason exactly but there is a reason. Otherwise if it was indeed a 'trivial' thing to them it would be just as routine as putting on your shoes. Anyway, that is a topic I choose to agree to disagree because it often gets down to opinion, and I haven't yet found someone to make me change mine, and there's people's I can't change.
Oh, and I didn't intend to direct my previous post at you, but just at any person who was reading it that had a different view than I do.
Amour
Well-Known Member
Oooooooooooooooohhhh!! Okay, then I totally misunderstood. I got caught up in the replies on justification/preference.
To answer, not personally, no. I have heard about people who have, ie. Brandy, and other obscure third-hand my-friends-cousin's-sister type deals. They usually--according to what I've heard--do something without family or friends present. Just some internet-certified preacher/pastor, or whatever, standing at an alter or on a beach and say their vows, kiss and go home.
A couple of times I've heard about a couple "saying their vows" under a tree or something, but those stories ended in "but apparently he was just saying that so she'd sleep with him", so I don't think those count.
The first time I have seen a suggested "wedding" is on the link you left for Puerto Vallarta. I know it's not much, but I hope that's somewhat of an answer.
thanks
Amour
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying, but IMO people refuse to wear the "married" label for a reason.
I can understand why you would think this, I suppose I really am an idealist.
It may not be obvious what reason exactly but there is a reason. Otherwise if it was indeed a 'trivial' thing to them it would be just as routine as putting on your shoes. Anyway, that is a topic I choose to agree to disagree
because it often gets down to opinion, and I haven't yet found someone to make me change mine, and there's people's I can't change.
Oh, and I didn't intend to direct my previous post at you, but just at any person who was reading it that had a different view than I do.
..............
Bunny77
New Member
KissKiss said:
I can understand... I wonder if the fact that you live in Europe has something to do with it. When I talk to Europeans about relationships and these types of issues, they have a completely different take on it than many Americans, and I've seen more of these situations work in Europe.
But when I hear most Americans talking about it, I'm like,
because the overwhelming majority of the situations happen because one partner knows what being legally married really means and he (usually he) doesn't want to make that level of commitment. And the women in this case often end up getting screwed when the relationship ends.
So this is one area I'm not an idealist on... actually, I'm not really an idealist when it comes to love these days anyway... I'm pretty pragmatic because I know that on many days, a relationship isn't going to be all hearts and flowers and rainbows and bunny rabbits! It's gonna be the basic, mundane stuff.
Anyway, the only thing I really disagree with you on is your belief that God will see a non-legal relationship as equal... but then again, I know that in Europe things are done a little differently and people choose not to marry for different reasons.
Oh, and I wanted to add that although I know that a lot of legal marriages are shams also because one partner is cheating or the two folks barely knew each other when they got married (Britney Spears anyone?), there IS more security that comes with having that Mrs. title.
It's called alimony
And fair or not fair, the woman who has the Mrs. title in the sham marriage will have many more rights than the woman who didn't have the title, but was in a truly long-term loving relationship.That's why I think it's dangerous to be an idealist about love and marriage, because life doesn't work that way!
I'll be back... I wanna post an interesting article...
Similar threads
