AS THE U.S. Supreme Court ponders Hollingsworth v. Perry and whether states have the authority to prohibit same-sex unions, it’s important to remember that, whatever the outcome of this decision, there is a marriage crisis in this country that will not be resolved by a Supreme Court decision upholding California’s Proposition 8. The states already actively discourage marriage and encourage immense damage to it. Divorce is a full-blown government industry.

Civil marriage has devolved into an individualistic, cruel and oppressive free-for-all. The solution is not better divorce laws. The solution is to return to an older model, in which marriage is a vow upheld before the non-governmental authorities of God, family, community and church. George Washington didn’t have a state marriage license, and you don’t need one either.

See Jeremy Morris’s excellent and persuasive defense of ecclesiastical marriage in this previous entry. He wrote:

I submit to you that God, and the families of origin for both parties have the only real influence and jurisdiction [over marriage.] If their influence in a particular case is insufficient, no true remedy will be had, at least not immediately. The state is notorious for causing minor problems to escalate. When an offended party cries to the state for help the result is the creation of wedge between husband and wife that in most cases can never be removed. Sole custody and child support are not true remedies. Whereas following God’s plan, conscience and family justice ultimately rule the day, whether it be sooner or later.

As for my wife and I, we have chosen the pure form of ecclesiastical marriage, if anyone considers it a “risk” I simply say to them, “You do not have to take the risk.” The ecclesiastical marriage covenant requires willing consent for it to be binding. It is a return to our roots from the tyrannical rule of the government over marriage. It is a clarification of a blurred truth, that government has no business or jurisdiction in marriage or family. And it is available for all who seek it. For those who do not, they have their marriage contract with the state, and the “protection” it offers.

My wife and I both agreed that pure ecclesiastical marriage is what we wanted. And it has drawn us closer together since there is no outside authority to appeal to, aside from God. We put our faith in God and his word, in particular: ” And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” – Romans 8:28

— Comments —

Clark Coleman writes:

Government support of any major activity in society is not needed if there is a consensus in favor of that activity. We don’t need the government to remind us to eat rather than starve, or to breathe rather than suffocate. Marriage used to have that status, so some sort of official stamp of approval from the government would not have contributed anything to the institution of marriage a few centuries ago. We no longer live in such a world, so the comparison to earlier eras is misleading. Various social forces have shrunk the institution of marriage over the last century and a half. If government jumps on the bandwagon and shrinks it some more, that will hurt the institution further. If government issues declarations that support a traditional understanding of marriage, that will help a little, but the social forces that damaged the institution in the first place will still need to be defeated. Those forces will also have to be defeated if we try to return to ecclesiastical marriages. But to think we can turn back the clock to an era when government policy on marriage is irrelevant is to misunderstand what has happened to marriage.

Laura writes:

We can’t turn back the clock and live in a world where the school down the street has a wholesome environment or where government education policy does not affect the world our children live in, but we can remove ourselves from that system and refuse to participate in it voluntarily. The same is true of marriage laws.

Teresa writes:

I disagree with Jeremy Morris’ view of marriage. The State and the Church are the only perfect societies we have: perfect, insofar, as they have within themselves the means to achieve their end. The family is an imperfect society, because it cannot achieve its end without outside help: the State and the Church. This is standard, traditional Catholic teaching for centuries.

The State has a vested interested in marriage and family because the family provides stability, security, and future for the State. It supports families in a variety of ways, all necessary to the health of the family. Because the state of our current government is off-the-rails; we, as individuals, still pursue the Way, the Truth and the Life. We do not abandon principles because of error or evil.

Government is a good, not an evil. It is an error to think otherwise. To succumb to some fanciful notion of ‘ecclesiastical marriage’ mimics the very evil we try to avoid.

Laura writes:

Government is potentially good, not inherently good and there are various forms of government. For instance, the Amish have a very low divorce rate, not because they have strict civil laws. They have the same divorce laws we do, but their religion and their informal civil authorities oppose divorce. The kind of ecclesiastical marriage Jeremy mentions is a way of eventually creating new civil authorities.

I am not suggesting that we permanently abandon civil marriage or the goal of a government that supports marriage, but that we refuse to accommodate this particular government in its opposition to marriage. The chance of adequately reforming our divorce laws through the democratic process is virtually nil.

Jeremy Morris writes:

Teresa wrote: ” The State has a vested interested in marriage and family because the family provides stability, security, and future for the State.”

From this statement it seems the State is dependent on outside help not the family. To assert that the State has jurisdiction to micromanage the family is a scary thought. When the people become corrupt the State inevitably becomes corrupt with them. Therefore, the support which promotes a healthy family is unavailable from the State. All that remains is “support” which contributes to the breakdown and destruction of families.

There is no amount of statutory law that will make up for a people who are in absolute rebellion to God and his law. An important thing to keep in mind: The State isn’t the originator of the family. “For if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” 1 Timothy 3:5

Fortunately, the support you speak of is still present regardless of the State and its whims in connection to the corruption of its people. God’s word provides the transcendent law that promotes a healthy family. “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened to you: ” Matthew 7:7

Teresa wrote: “Government is a good, not an evil. It is an error to think otherwise. To succumb to some fanciful notion of ‘ecclesiastical marriage’ mimics the very evil we try to avoid.”

To say that government is good not evil is the same as saying man is good not evil. Which is inconsistent with the Bible, man has the potential for good but, since the fall our dominant nature is evil. Without the redemptive work of Christ we would all be doomed. In light of that, it stands to reason that a government made up of men only has potential for good. Also, government isn’t synonymous with the State. If we make the mistake of allowing ourselves to believe it is, we ignore one of the most important forms of government which is self-government. And more particularly Christian self-government.

Please follow and like us: