by Quillsky 34 Replies latest jw friends
dgp,
I guess I am in the minority of women you speak about. I felt my man was committed to me before the actual marriage - never doubted it for a second.
I did not need the paper, he did. And I was committed to him enough to say, if it makes him feel more secure, I will do it. Some people need that, and that's ok. As I said, I see a difference in him since the wedding......He is more confident in our relationship. And I am happy to do that for him.
I'm still of the belief that monogamy is not natural. If it was natural, there would be no cheating, which seems to have proven itself out to be natural in certain circumstances. The very fewest of couples stay coupled for a lifetime. Eagles stay coupled for their entire lifetime, so I've heard. It's natural for them. There are no eagle rules on it. They just do it. I remember on another thread someone saying that rules and laws had to be enacted for the safety and benefit of the wife and any children they may have had together. It seems that the marriage contract is more for keeping the husband from straying too far from the coop. Do men in general feel more loaded down by marriage than by simply living together?
Palmtree,
Congratulations on finding such a wonderful man.
I say take religion and government out of the equation, then living with a partner in a committed sexual relationship IS a marriage.
I'm curious: what is the motivation behind attempting to convince others of the need to redefine "marriage" in this way if, as per the definition, it has no religious nor (more importantly in my personal opinion) any legal basis or ramifications?
I'm curious: what is the motivation behind attempting to convince others of the need to redefine "marriage" in this way if, as per the definition, it has no religious nor (more importantly in my personal opinion) any legal basis or ramifications?
I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything. I made a proposition in order to open a discussion.
I don't feel strongly about the matter but was pondering it for various reasons, and sometimes my ponderings make their way from my overactive mind onto my keyboard in various ways!
So let's take Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. Were they married? Not technically - their Hindu ceremony in Indonesia wasn't recognized by any government on earth (I think - open to correction) - but many consider them to have been married.
Take a Muslim man with two legal wives, say from Saudi Arabia, who emigrates to a Western country. In the home country both women are in a marriage (according to the government) while in the West the first wife is in a marriage and the second wife is a mistress (according to the government).
Even take Jehovah's Witnesses (though this isn't a JW-oriented discussion) in Catholic countries where divorce is not permitted by law but Scripturally it is if one partner has cheated. The WBTS makes allowance for a subsequent new marriage for the wronged partner which is recognized by the congregation even though not by the government.
I was also thinking about the expression "common law wife" or "common law husband" - some countries give similar legal status as marriage to partners who have been living together for a certain period of time.
Then there is a converse example. I know someone who shared a house with a fellow college student and they became "roommates with benefits". So they got married when all their friends started getting married, but later divorced amicably.
They remain friends today, but admit that even when they were legally married they were still merely "roommates with benefits".
I'm married dammit! Well, I feel that way today.
I'm thinking my next relationship is going to be with my long time girlfriend (platonic at the moment, but she's a lesbian) after I kill my husband tonight.
Today. I hate men. LOL And Walmart.
Palmtree, my hat is off to you.
I believe that many women need the paper and the ceremonies because they are at a serious disadvantage. They are the ones who get pregnant, for starters.
I will be the first to admit that there are some times in a woman's life when she really needs a man to be there for her. Are there times in a man's life when he really needs a woman to be there for him?
May I respond? Thank you and may you all have peace!
In the eyes of God, marriage has nothing to do with who you live with. It is about who you have JOINED with... by means of the flesh. Thus, the Most Holy One of Israel did not... and does not... require a document to indicate that a man and woman are married. In His eyes, once a man and woman join in flesh... i.e., have intercourse... they are considered "married." When Mary became pregnant with my Lord by means of holy spirit, she and Joseph were only "promised" in marriage because they had not yet had relations and consummated their union. Once a man and woman had intercourse, however... they were married. Because that is what "marriage" is: the bringing of two (whatever) together. The two... become one... flesh. Right then and there.*
[NOTE: (1) Yes, there may have been a marriage "ceremony"... but there was no need for a paper ackowledging anything, as once the groom took the bride into his house/chamber and closed the door, the assumption of intercourse was sufficient to establish a marriage. Some cultures even check/checked the bed/sheets/woman... to make sure. (2) Under the Old Law, divorce did require a "certificate"... so that the wife who was "loosed" could be free to remarry (the certificate indicated that she was no longer "bound" to the husband that gave it to her. Sort of like the papers given to U.S. slaves when they were freed by their masters).]
If you take that premise (marriage is simply the joining of the flesh)... add a bit of co-habitation time and some "holding out as being married"... you have what some U.S. states recognize as "common law" marriage... which does not require a document. The requirment of a written document, however, is something that became required by the "king" during the days of English feudal law. Then, non-property owners (i.e., serfs) simply lived together, had children, etc. (i.e., "common law") marriage. No paper was required but only recognition by the Church (via the local parish/priory), for those who recognized the Church... and/or the village/townfolk (for those who did not recognize the Church). (True, the Jews were required to register at the temple annually, but that was not with regard to marriage but tribal lineage and census.)
Things were different for landowners, however. Because all land ultimately belonged to the king, issues arose as to rights of devisement and inheritance. To ensure that land stayed within the kingdom only legitimate children were permitted to inherit (the king couldn't have his lords marrying the women of his enemies, resulting in the land passing on to the children of such unions, and thus enemy kingdoms). In order to be able to determine which children WERE legitimate, therefore, a certificate of marriage was required and issued to establish who the "wife" of the landowner was (because they ususally had relations with more than one woman, including many "beneath their station"). In order to get a certificate, the husband to be (and/or woman's father... or other male designee - uncle, brother, etc. - if the father were deceased) made a request to the king (or his designee, which sometimes was the church)... and if the king agreed, he signed and issued the certificate with his seal on it. Once the certificate was issued, any children resulting from the union were considered "legitimate" (i.e., legally recognized) and could inherit their father's land as a result.
Alternatively, if the king (or his designee) didn't agree to the union, NO "marriage" could take place. And the king might withhold his consent for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: preservation of the land within the kingdom - i.e., ensuring that it did not go to enemies; treaties/agreements with others for the woman's hand, to the benefit of the kingdom; insufficient dowry; and even personal reasons, such as vendettas, etc.). That didn't mean the couple couldn't SEE each other - indeed they not only could SEE each other, but even sleep with each other and produce children. They just could not "marry". (Note, some believe that this situation was the source of the word "fu_k" - meaning, "Fornication Under Consent of the King".) Because they did not have a LEGITIMATE union (i.e., one approved of and recognized by the king), however, the offspring of such union could never inherit the land (and in some instances, personal property). And this went on for centuries.
Problems began to arise, however, when (1) a property owner, wishing to circumvent inheritance laws, left property to his illegitimate child(ren)... by WILL... thus usurping the legal rights of any legitimate child(ren), and (2) the wife and/or her legitimate children brought suit in court as a result. The question then arose as to which should prevail: the laws of estate, which say anyone who owns land as a freehold estate can devise it to anyone they wish? The law of wills, which granted a person the right to leave his property and possessions to anyone he wished? Or the laws of inheritance, which granted the right of property inheritance soley to legitimate children? For some time the third ruled and so illegitimate children could NOT inherit.
Eventually, though, the common law courts decided (after many centuries) that illegitimate children not only could inherit if property were actually willed to them, but actually had certain inheritance rights even when property wasn't willed to them. Most of the states in the U.S. follow English common law in this regard and so legitimate AND illegitimate children have equal inheritance rights. The state of Louisana, however, follows French law and pursuant to that only legitimate children have inheritance rights as to land.
I hope this helps clarify... and, again, I bid you all peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
*[It is the exact same premise with Christ and his Bride: an "intercourse" takes place... not with the flesh, but with the spirit... and so the two become one SPIRIT. That is what is meant when my Lord said, "THIS means everlasting life, their KNOWING you (in the way a man knows a woman) the True God... AND the One whom you sent forth. Those who belong to Christ KNOW him and he them... intimately... as a man knows a woman, intimately. It is the same word "know". And "through" knowing HIM... they know... and are known BY... the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. So that, as in the fleshly instance, no WRITTEN document is required but only a ratification of the Covenant between such one and God... by a "mixing" of "blood, water, and spirit" - the person's... with God's... through Christ... versus, in the instance of a man and woman, ratification of the "covenant" between them by a mixing of... well, I'm sure you don't need a full graphic... through their bodies...]
AGuest,
Thank you for that digest....very helpful.
