Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How We View Marriage

JLHPROF

By JLHPROF
in General Discussions

Would you marry without a license?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. If the church began sealing marriages without civil marriage licenses (for whatever reason) would you get married without one?

  2. 2. Would you in your heart AND head be able to consider yourself truly married if you were sealed but had no legal license?

  3. 3. Which aspect of the marriage "joining" do you see as the most legitimizing of the union?

    • The commitment between the bride and groom to each other.
      22
    • The state issued "legal" marriage (license, civil law etc).
      4
    • The seal placed upon the marriage by priesthood authority.
      20
    • Other - see comment below
      4

Recommended Posts

jaxenro Community Regular

jaxenro

Posted
Posted (edited)

I thought I had to get one but that was 30 years ago and CT isn't on the list so my memory could be faulty

Edited by jaxenro
Bob Crockett Grand Master

Bob Crockett

Posted
Posted (edited)

It may be of interest to note that licensing of marriages in the U.S. by the government first occurred in 1887, in compliance with the Edmund Tucker Act, and only applied at that time to Territories then under federal jurisdiction, and was instituted to prevent polygamy. (See HERE) Prior to that time, state and federal marital laws were restricted to divorce and age of children. (ibid.)

 

You're misreading the Utah statement, which is limited only to the history of the Utah Territory.

 

In the Utah Territory, for some reason, the territorial legislature never got around to creating a license system for marriage until 1872 or so.   Marriage licenses were employed in every state in the Union, and were required in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.

 

Territories had the implicit right to issue licenses for marriage before 1872, as the Poland Act indicated when it outlawed plural marriage.  Further, the territorial courts were granting divorces from territorial marriages before 1872, which plainly indicated that the territories had the implicit right to issue marriage licenses before 1872.

Edited by Bob Crockett
1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

"Premarital blood testing was intended to detect sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, syphilis and rubella, diseases that could sicken adults and affect or impair partners or babies born to the marriage. During one period, Illinois tested for AIDS but the law requiring this was repealed in 1989. Generally, both partners are tested in states that still have this requirement in their laws. However, vaccines are now available against rubella and syphilis can be cured by penicillin, and this has largely negated the purpose of the test."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/215971-a-marriage-license-blood-tests/

"In a recent column you advised a young Los Angeleno on the real reason for premarital blood testing. Although you hit the nail on the head about venereal disease, you left out an important fact. Premarital blood tests are done for another reason as well, namely to test for blood type, including Rh factor.

Rh factor was first isolated from rabbits inoculated with rhesus (hence Rh) monkey blood. It turns out that 85 percent of the population tests positively for the Rh antigen in their red blood cells (i.e., they're Rh-positive). The other 15 percent are Rh-negative. If you are an Rh-negative female and your husband is Rh-positive, as revealed by your premarital blood test, you run the risk of having an Rh-positive child. If so, you would produce antibodies against your own child's blood. The first child might be anemic, and a second or third might well die in utero or soon after birth (erythroblastosis fetalis). If you are planning to have children it is important to know if you are Rh-positive or negative so the proper precautions may be taken."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1144/what-is-the-purpose-of-premarital-blood-testing

Edited by calmoriah
  • 2 months later...
wenglund Grand Master

wenglund

Posted
Posted

You're misreading the Utah statement, which is limited only to the history of the Utah Territory.

 

In the Utah Territory, for some reason, the territorial legislature never got around to creating a license system for marriage until 1872 or so.   Marriage licenses were employed in every state in the Union, and were required in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.

 

Territories had the implicit right to issue licenses for marriage before 1872, as the Poland Act indicated when it outlawed plural marriage.  Further, the territorial courts were granting divorces from territorial marriages before 1872, which plainly indicated that the territories had the implicit right to issue marriage licenses before 1872.

 

I stand corrected. Through my own research I found at least one example where marriage licenses, issued by the clerk of the district court in the county in which the female resided, were required by the state of Iowa as early as 1840. (See HERE--pp 23-27)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bikeemikey Grand Master

Bikeemikey

Posted
Posted

We could do like they do in England - civil marriage first then sealing.

Why no just have a religious sealing and not care what people do with regards to the State?

1
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Why no just have a religious sealing and not care what people do with regards to the State?

 

My sentiments exactly.  IMO priesthood sealing authority should be the legitimizing factor in marriages of the saints.

Worldly concerns are temporal and should only matter as we "render unto Caesar".  But my marriage is about my religious faith, not a state institution.

wenglund Grand Master

wenglund

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why no just have a religious sealing and not care what people do with regards to the State?

 

To me, even though it has been greatly diminished of late, if not banally ignored, there is still some value in pursuing the state's interest in marriage. (See HERE and HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted

That's very interesting.  So the marriage licenses we now revere as necessary (legal & lawful) were instituted in the U.S. using a law designed to fight against the Church.  How times have changed.

 

Chickens coming home to roost, I suppose.

Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

Quick question: Does the Church ever perform "till death do you part" weddings or is the full eternity or nothing?

Bishops perform "till death do you part" ceremonies all the time, 2 of my children had bishops do tbis, and another is coming up. So in that way it happens. And the bishops have tried to preach a better way each time with inuendos during the ceremony. Which can be annoying to people attending that are not married "the propet way", in the temple. But I appreciate their (bishops) service very much.
mormonnewb Veteran

mormonnewb

Posted
Posted

Bishops perform "till death do you part" ceremonies all the time, 2 of my children had bishops do tbis, and another is coming up. So in that way it happens. And the bishops have tried to preach a better way each time with inuendos during the ceremony. Which can be annoying to people attending that are not married "the propet way", in the temple. But I appreciate their (bishops) service very much.

Do they perform these services only when the couple isn't temple worthy? Or for other reasons? For instance, does a couple ever say, "Hey, we've only been dating for 6 months. We're willing to commit for life but can we get back to you on that eternity thing?"

Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

Do they perform these services only when the couple isn't temple worthy? Or for other reasons? For instance, does a couple ever say, "Hey, we've only been dating for 6 months. We're willing to commit for life but can we get back to you on that eternity thing?"

Wish I had something witty to say, guess I'll just say I'm pretty sure that would pass, but in their bishops mind, it would be their loss.
Bikeemikey Grand Master

Bikeemikey

Posted
Posted

Wish I had something witty to say, guess I'll just say I'm pretty sure that would pass, but in their bishops mind, it would be their loss.

Bishops can and often do perform wedding services for non-LDS couples as well.

Cheers,

Mike

mormonnewb Veteran

mormonnewb

Posted
Posted

Bishops can and often do perform wedding services for non-LDS couples as well.

Cheers,

Mike

So in the LDS paradigm, is it unthinkable for a worthy couple to get married temporarily but not sealed for eternity? I have to confess that this is still one of the things that I don't get about us. We usually have shorter courtships and yet make the longest commitments. How does someone in their 20s even consider an ETERNAL commitment to someone they've known for weeks or months?

1
rpn Grand Master

rpn

Posted
Posted

Perhaps this has already been said, but in case it hasn't ---- The state is in charge of deciding who is legally married.    It is highly unlikely (we all know how the historical example went) that the Church would seal those who did not first obtain a legal marriage.   They do not do it now in the many countries that do NOT authorize religious persons to create legal marriages.   Instead, temple marriages are simply proceeded by a civil marriage.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...