Sadly, I'm Considering Divorce

[Philip]

Here's why: http://www.wltx.com/story/news/world/20 ... /71056646/

That is, divorce in a LEGAL sense, one that society and our legal system recognize as being "marriage." Of course, there is a monetary cost involved, likely attorney fees. Not sure how it would impact one's willed property to heirs, etc. But if those items are all a negligible cost and easily affordable, and if I'm still married in the eyes of God (the only One who ever truly matters), and if society and our legal system has now re-defined what marriage is (and what parties/genders/number of people/farm animals? can join it), and as there truly doesn't seem to be much of any differentiating advantage to being married (compared to single people or gay "married" unions) - I say, why not divorce? Why not declare oneself "married in the eyes of God ONLY," that you've opted out of what the state now considers marriage? It's certainly making a statement. Because, isn't some of what is driving same-sex marriage is to legitimize it, for gay people to have now arrived in "joining society's norms?"

Aha, but if enough Christians divorced, at least as far as (only) the state is concerned, guess just how quickly laws would appear that re-enforce and benefit same-sex couples over newly "single" Christian couples? In SC, the ruling on same-sex marriage is to come down in late June. So, divorcing might be something to think about.

[RickD]

Here's why: http://www.wltx.com/story/news/world/20 ... /71056646/

That is, divorce in a LEGAL sense, one that society and our legal system recognize as being "marriage." Of course, there is a monetary cost involved, likely attorney fees. Not sure how it would impact one's willed property to heirs, etc. But if those items are all a negligible cost and easily affordable, and if I'm still married in the eyes of God (the only One who ever truly matters), and if society and our legal system has now re-defined what marriage is (and what parties/genders/number of people/farm animals? can join it), and as there truly doesn't seem to be much of any differentiating advantage to being married (compared to single people or gay "married" unions) - I say, why not divorce? Why not declare oneself "married in the eyes of God ONLY," that you've opted out of what the state now considers marriage? It's certainly making a statement. Because, isn't some of what is driving same-sex marriage is to legitimize it, for gay people to have now arrived in "joining society's norms?"

Aha, but if enough Christians divorced, at least as far as (only) the state is concerned, guess just how quickly laws would appear that re-enforce and benefit same-sex couples over newly "single" Christian couples? In SC, the ruling on same-sex marriage is to come down in late June. So, divorcing might be something to think about.

Umm...no.
That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. What kind of a good steward would one be if by getting this divorce, he has to pay lawyer fees, extra money for medical insurance, more money on taxes, and not be able to legally visit the ex spouse in the hospital, etc.
Sounds like going way too extreme to make a point.

And Philip, you really need to be careful with the title of your thread. I nearly had a coronary when I read the title, and saw that you wrote it!!!

[Philip]

Rick: Umm...no.
That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. What kind of a good steward would one be if by getting this divorce, he has to pay lawyer fees, extra money for medical insurance, more money on taxes, and not be able to legally visit the ex spouse in the hospital, etc.
Sounds like going way too extreme to make a point.

And Philip, you really need to be careful with the title of your thread. I nearly had a coronary when I read the title, and saw that you wrote it!!!

Relax, Rick! Note that I said "IF" the costs were negligible and affordable (probably many of them ARE significant). My ENTIRE point is rhetorical! The header was MEANT to get attention, as I consider what is happening to what society and the state considers marriage to be a terrible shift. And I like the idea of turning this clamor for legitimacy for same-sex marriage on it's head / not participating, so to speak. But would I actually do so - no, only due to the costs and some other legal issues.

But why would two people who clearly consider themselves married not be able to visit in the hospital? Can one not have a legal right of attorney declared that is independent of marriage - I think so. Does this dilemma happen to unmarried couples - gay or straight? Are they denied visitation unless it's been forbidden by either unmarried partner? My understanding is that taxes are much the same, nowadays. Basically, nowadays, it's mostly these legal tangles and financial incentives that are really the ONLY reason for Christians to stay (or ever get) married in the eyes of the state - that is, IF the state changes what it considers to be the legal definition of and who all can be included in marriage.

Tell me the truth, IF there were no harmful financial, spousal right issues in a crisis, or concern over one's will, WHY would we care if the STATE recognizes our "marriage?" That's my point! I care that GOD recognizes, even PUT TOGETHER, our spiritual becoming of ONE. And that was the point of the couple in the article. They want others to see that what Christians and God consider marriage to be is not this foreign concept of government and most of society.

I hope you see my point - it's not to be flippant. Hey, Rick, you're married - I'm sure you keep heart medicine on hand!

[NobodySpecial]

I'm finding it very difficult to find any Biblical support for even getting a marriage license in the first place. From what I've read and from the (very limited) research I've completed on the topic it seems like the whole idea of a "marriage license" is something that was instituted as way for the state to make money off of an institution that predates even the constitution.

Interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm
http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20Li ... 0Truth.htm

[jlay]

Philip,
does this mean we can finally be married? In the legal sense of course.

[Philip]

jlay: Philip,does this mean we can finally be married? In the legal sense of course.

J, I'd say that ship has sailed! We'll have to keep living OUT of sin!

Nobody: I'm finding it very difficult to find any Biblical support for even getting a marriage license in the first place.

Other than that if you want to take advantage of all the pluses of legal marriage, you must have a - you got it - LEGAL marriage by an OFFICIAL deemed so by the state. Course, I'm told a boat captain (airline captain? hope not) will suffice. And so, to take advantage of what the state recognizes as marriage, we have to do so legally. And God said to obey law unless the conflict with His instructions, so...

[RickD]

Philip wrote:
Tell me the truth, IF there were no harmful financial, spousal right issues in a crisis, or concern over one's will, WHY would we care if the STATE recognizes our "marriage?

Because it would mean that the state recognizes the importance of a marriage(by its real definition, 1 man, 1 woman), and that marriage is crucial to the survival of any civilized society. That's all...

[Philip]

Because it would mean that the state recognizes the importance of a marriage(by its real definition, 1 man, 1 woman), and that marriage is crucial to the survival of any civilized society. That's all...

Yes, IF that were only way the state defines marriage, no harm being married in the legal sense. But if it becomes perversely redefined, and it wouldn't hurt my spouse or family, I'd think about opting out legally. Spiritually, which is far more important, is clearly another matter.

[RickD]

Because it would mean that the state recognizes the importance of a marriage(by its real definition, 1 man, 1 woman), and that marriage is crucial to the survival of any civilized society. That's all...

Yes, IF that were only way the state defines marriage, no harm being married in the legal sense. But if it becomes perversely redefined, and it wouldn't hurt my spouse or family, I'd think about opting out legally. Spiritually, which is far more important, is clearly another matter.

I guess an argument could be made that biblically speaking, state defined marriage is meaningless anyways. Marriage, since the beginning with A&E, has been about a commitment of a man and woman before God.

So maybe we should just make a push for all believers to refuse to get married legally. Just make it the spiritual/religious commitment that it was intended to be. Keep the government out of it.

I can see the logic in that. And I guess, if by extension of that thought, a Christian couple wants to get divorced in the eyes of the govt., then why not.

[Philip]

Rick: I can see the logic in that. And I guess, if by extension of that thought, a Christian couple wants to get divorced in the eyes of the govt., then why not.

OK, let's say that happened, that Christians, in large numbers, began legally divorcing (while staying spiritually yoked) - what do you think would happen - what do you think would be the societal response?

[RickD]

Rick: I can see the logic in that. And I guess, if by extension of that thought, a Christian couple wants to get divorced in the eyes of the govt., then why not.

OK, let's say that happened, that Christians, in large numbers, began legally divorcing (while staying spiritually yoked) - what do you think would happen - what do you think would be the societal response?

First off, let me just say that I really don't think Christian couples en masse would legally divorce.

But let's just say for the sake of the argument that it happened. I think the societal response would be, "Christians sure are a bunch of homophobic, bigoted, loons!"

[PaulSacramento]

I don't really care what the state does one way or another in this regard.
I answer only to Christ and it is for Him that I live.
My marriage is under God and that is all that matters.

Governments are run by lawyers, enough said.

[RickD]

I don't really care what the state does one way or another in this regard.
I answer only to Christ and it is for Him that I live.
My marriage is under God and that is all that matters.

Governments are run by lawyers, enough said.

Whadda you know, you're Canadian! FYI, the U.S. Govt is run by bureaucrats.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't really care what the state does one way or another in this regard.
I answer only to Christ and it is for Him that I live.
My marriage is under God and that is all that matters.

Governments are run by lawyers, enough said.

Whadda you know, you're Canadian! FYI, the U.S. Govt is run by bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats that are lawyers or have lawyers on their payroll.

[1over137]

I am married only legally