42 replies to this topic

[Ariarates]

This question is about western countries where (1) a religious marriage ceremony has no legal status and (2) there are no laws against living together without being married. In such countries, you can only get married in the temple if you are legally married first. My question is: why?

From a gospel perspective, isn't the temple marriage all that really matters? And since, in the circumstances I described, you wouldn't be breaking any laws if you were not legally married first, why insist on civil marriage?

My reason for asking is that I recently spoke to an inactive member who couldn't get legally married because the husband lacked the necessary papers. He had a legal status as a refugee but his country of origin was not in such a state that he could easily obtain a birth certificate or any official documentation like that.

There were legal procedures in place to overcome this but these involved a long, uncertain waiting period (think years, not months). Meanwhile, the couple was head over heels and went to the bishop to ask if, under the circumstances, they could get married in the temple and start their life together. Unfortunately, the bishop saw no way to accommodate them (I am assuming that the legal issues were the only ones) and said they would just have to wait it out and if it was meant to be, it would all work out somehow. If not, then clearly it wasn't meant to be.

They tried this for a while but at a certain point in time decided to move in together and start their life together. They have been together for 17 years now and have two lovely children and a happy home. Clearly it was "meant to be" from that perspective but they also drifted away from the church and harbour ill feelings for the cold inflexibility they encountered and for which they didn't understand the reason (nor were they given one). I think that is quite a high price to pay for a policy.

Any ideas?

[cinepro]

That's actually a very good question.  While I suspect there are several reasons, I would guess that ultimately it is to maintain some kind of order.

Just think about it.  If a couple is "sealed" but not legally married, what happens if they want a divorce?  Is there any legal status for the children (assuming they have any)? How does the property get divided?

In the same way, you can't just have any child sealed to your family.  They must be legally adopted first.  While the sealing ceremony means a lot in the eternal sense, there are many earthly matters that need to be settled as well.

[Buzzard]

If you think of the language in the temple endowment connected with the law of chastity, it is pretty clear that the church-and by extension, the Lord-expects compliance with the civil marriage laws of the land.

[Pahoran]

Buzzard, on 17 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

If you think of the language in the temple endowment connected with the law of chastity, it is pretty clear that the church-and by extension, the Lord-expects compliance with the civil marriage laws of the land.

Yes, and that compliance as a minimum.  The Law of Chastity may well have higher requirements.  For example, where those laws are inadequate -- such as where they recognise as marriages relationships thar are not acceptable -- there is no reason to expect the Church -- and by extension, the Lord -- to extend the same degree of recognition.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Civil marriage carries a number of presumptions as well as legal protections for the childbearing spouse.  Intestacy, paternity etc.   Govt has an interest in reducing disputes and protecting the weak wife.    Since the days of the Roman Empire, govt has frowned on producing children in an unwedded state.  

Now don't shoot the messenger but that is what a thousand years of commentary says.   Until recently, shacking up was criminalized.

[blueadept]

cinepro, on 17 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

That's actually a very good question.  While I suspect there are several reasons, I would guess that ultimately it is to maintain some kind of order.

Just think about it.  If a couple is "sealed" but not legally married, what happens if they want a divorce?  Is there any legal status for the children (assuming they have any)? How does the property get divided?

Technically, these are all civil matters.  In the US, the issue would be resolved by the state and church would have nothing to be concerned with.  What's different in the OP's scenario?

Quote

In the same way, you can't just have any child sealed to your family.  They must be legally adopted first.  While the sealing ceremony means a lot in the eternal sense,

I can appreciate why the LDS church would have an issue here but it would seem to be a weak concern as compared to the couple being inactive over this issue......just saying.

Quote

there are many earthly matters that need to be settled as well.

'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.'   I would believe this should be the deciding factor in regards to how a bishop should handle a scenario like this.  I have a funny feeling there may be other issues in this scenario that the OP may not be aware of.

[theplains]

Do civil marriages between Mormons occur in the ward or do they go to a local government office?

Thanks,
Jim

[calmoriah]

There are legal consequences of a marriage relationship, especially when children are involved.

[calmoriah]

theplains, on 17 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Do civil marriages between Mormons occur in the ward or do they go to a local government office? Thanks, Jim

If a temple marriage is not involved, it is the individuals' choice.

[Ariarates]

cinepro, on 17 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

If a couple is "sealed" but not legally married, what happens if they want a divorce?  Is there any legal status for the children (assuming they have any)? How does the property get divided?

This is all covered in civil law; it's not even the problem you make it out to be. When a child is born, its date and place of birth get recorded, as well as the mother and, if known, the father. If no arrangements are made for property division (like a prenup or a will), standard laws apply. There is no conflict here between civil law and church law.

cinepro, on 17 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

In the same way, you can't just have any child sealed to your family.  They must be legally adopted first.  While the sealing ceremony means a lot in the eternal sense, there are many earthly matters that need to be settled as well.

The OP was about a sealing between man and wife. Even so, if they have children, all they need to produce is the birth certificate to prove it is their child.

[Ariarates]

Buzzard, on 17 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

If you think of the language in the temple endowment connected with the law of chastity, it is pretty clear that the church-and by extension, the Lord-expects compliance with the civil marriage laws of the land.

But the law of the land (in the situation described in the OP) doesn't require civil marriage. The curch does. Why?

[Ariarates]

Pahoran, on 17 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yes, and that compliance as a minimum.  The Law of Chastity may well have higher requirements.  For example, where those laws are inadequate -- such as where they recognise as marriages relationships thar are not acceptable -- there is no reason to expect the Church -- and by extension, the Lord -- to extend the same degree of recognition.

I agree. The standards for a temple marriage stand by themselves. So why require civil marriage?

[Ariarates]

Bob Crockett, on 17 April 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Civil marriage carries a number of presumptions as well as legal protections for the childbearing spouse.  Intestacy, paternity etc.   Govt has an interest in reducing disputes and protecting the weak wife. Since the days of the Roman Empire, govt has frowned on producing children in an unwedded state.  

Now don't shoot the messenger but that is what a thousand years of commentary says.   Until recently, shacking up was criminalized.

Exactly my point. Shacking up has been decriminalized and there are now plenty of legal means to protect life and limb of those involved, so why insist on civil marriage as a prerequisite for a temple marriage?

[Ariarates]

blueadept, on 17 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

I have a funny feeling there may be other issues in this scenario that the OP may not be aware of.

Could be but I am not going to pry in a personal matter like this. That is why, in the OP, I stated for the sake of argument that I am assuming that the legal issues were the only impediments for the temple marriage.

[Ariarates]

Thanks for all your replies, I've addressed them one by one. So far, I have not heard a compelling reason for the church's insistence on civil marriage as a prerequisite for temple marriage in the situation as described in the OP.

I can see how this rule is useful in temple work for the dead, though, so ordinances are only performed for people who were actually married.

[calmoriah]

The concept of being sealed eternally is a concept of having total, everlasting commitment to one's partner.  Being married for time in a civil ceremony is an indication that one is willing to become one in public view with each other, legally taking on shared existence, often taking on each other's names or at least sharing a name, of becoming one in all mortal things.  Legal marriage is a symbolic act of standing before one's community and government and proclaiming "we are one".  Why wouldn't one want to participate in such a declaration of commitment even if it wasn't required?

[calmoriah]

There is also, I believe, an effort by the Church to keep itself as consistent in policy throughout the world as possible and that would include legal standards.

[Ariarates]

calmoriah, on 18 April 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Why wouldn't one want to participate in such a declaration of commitment even if it wasn't required?

That's not my question. Sorry to be argumentative but I really would like to know if there is a good reason to take back to my acquaintance.

[Log]

Why you asking us?  Write to Salt Lake.

[Ariarates]

calmoriah, on 18 April 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

There is also, I believe, an effort by the Church to keep itself as consistent in policy throughout the world as possible and that would include legal standards.

The legal standard in the countries described in the OP is that it's not necessary for two people to be legally married to be living together. Why would the church add extralegal requirements in order to be consistent in legal standards?