Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement

Thoughts on a Question about Getting Married without a Marriage License

March 4th, 2015

Okay folks, help me out on this one: “Whenever I get married would it be wrong just to have a wedding ceremony without a marriage license so I can keep my disability benefits because that is my only income?”

Can or would a pastor marry a couple without a marriage license? I also recognize that the intent of this couple is to circumvent the law by not having a civil ceremony in order to retain governmental benefits. That in itself presents a problem as well. Thanks for your input.

Like ·
  • Stuart Mattfield Wrong on every level.
    March 3 at 4:35pm · Like · 1
  • Elizabeth DeVore We get this question a lot but never from someone so young.
    March 3 at 4:50pm · Like
  • Lincoln Bostick It wouldn’t be recognized as a marriage without a license
    March 3 at 5:20pm · Like
  • Jeff Laird Just trying to think this through… don’t we think there’s a difference between “rites” and “rights”? Being spiritually married, and being eligible for certain government benefits, are not the same thing. If they don’t want the drawbacks/benefits of a secular/legal social marriage, but follow the spiritual, isn’t that the real marriage? Thinking out loud here.
    March 3 at 5:30pm · Like
  • Tim White Jeff. The benefits they are trying to maintain are civil /legal. You can’t claim single legal status on one hand and recognize the marriage on the other.
    March 3 at 5:32pm · Like · 1
  • Tim White God never authorized skirting the law for financial reasons.
    March 3 at 5:34pm · Like · 1
  • Sarah Van Baale I got a question like this a year ago or so – I approached it from the standpoint that Jesus taught us to obey civil law, not only biblical law. If we break the (government) law for the purposes of selfish gain it is most definitely sin and cannot be rationalized. Since the law of the government in terms of marriage does not directly conflict with biblical laws we cannot rationalize disobeying civil law with the idea that we are still obeying God’s law.

    I mean, are we allowed to go 90 on the highway because we need to get somewhere fast? And can we rationalize speeding because the Bible doesn’t post a speed limit? Jesus was pretty clear about what is expected of us both in terms of civil and spiritual law.
    March 3 at 5:39pm · Edited · Like
  • Jeff Laird But they aren’t “skirting the law,” because the law doesn’t say they *have* to claim marital benefits. Just like we say with same-sex issues, legal entitlements are not intrinsically bound to whether a marriage is legitimate or not. Speeding is illegal. Being spiritually married is not the same as being governmentally married, right?
    March 3 at 5:53pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale No – I don’t think you can have a spiritual marriage without a legal marriage. But I do think you can have a legal marriage without a spiritual marriage.
    March 3 at 5:54pm · Like · 2
  • Jeff Laird Sarah, what if the law said it was illegal for Christians to marry? Why does government get to decide whether my vows to God are legitimate or not? (BTW, not necessarily agreeing with the questioner )
    March 3 at 6:07pm · Like
  • Tim White If the Law said, no Christian marriage, we would conscientiously object for spiritual reasons, not financial.
    March 3 at 6:09pm · Like
  • Jeff Laird My wife and I often file our taxes as “single”, since we get a better return. We have a legal marriage, but we sometimes find it financially beneficial to be legally treated as non-(secularly) married. Would that be illicit, or a reasonable use of the law?
    March 3 at 6:15pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale What Tim said. We are to obey the law as long as it does not conflict with Scripture. We really can’t get around Romans 13.
    March 3 at 6:15pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale You can always file as ‘married filing separately’, but filing as single/un-married would be lying.
    March 3 at 6:16pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield I think we’re debating bits and pieces. Jeff is right that a spiritual marriage is not exactly the same as a legal marriage. But without going down the road of “what-if’s” we can agree that in this country a spiritual marriage (for now) always involves a legal marriage. Otherwise we’ve opened up the door for unmarried couples in the church to claim to be married “spiritually”. That does diminish the way the church has traditionally viewed marriages.
    March 3 at 6:17pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield I also agree with Sarah’s approach that we are bound to obey civil authority by Scripture.
    March 3 at 6:18pm · Like
  • Tim White Jeff, if that option is permitted by law, it is done so for a reason. If it is against the law, it is done for a reason. We obey the law where and when we can without violating our faith. That means taking advantage of any legal savings allowed, but that’s it. I don’t know what the law reads on that, but we always file as married.
    March 3 at 6:19pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield And while I am not completely familiar with the tax law, I would again agree with Sarah…if the law says married couples must file as married filing jointly or married filling separately, then filing as single is not right.
    March 3 at 6:22pm · Like
  • Jeff Laird I guess part of what I’m pointing out is that what they’re proposing (no pun intended) is not illegal. If he wants disability, he can’t get the civil benefits of marriage, and vice versa. And, that I’m not sure that we want to make secular approval – ever – a requirement for a “real” marriage, or we wind up making ad hoc exceptions.
    March 3 at 6:24pm · Like
  • Jeff Laird We file “married, separate” (terminology), in case that’s confusing.
    March 3 at 6:25pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield Jeff…I understand what you are proposing, but for lack of a better way to put it…your proposition violates the law of non-contradiction. What I mean is…yes, the guy is not technically breaking the law. But within the context of a Biblically recognized marriage…he’s not married either. I understand his question to mean, “Can I be married but not in a civil sense so I can keep my benefits.” The answer is, “No, because as the church we uphold the laws of the civil authorities and to be married in the church in this country we need to follow the law of the land.” What he is proposing is tantamount to relativism, (i.e. I’m married…but married in my own way) which the church should also oppose.
    March 3 at 6:37pm · Like · 1
  • Jeff Laird Stuart, no, this is not contradictory. My entire point is that secular and spiritual marriage are *not* the same thing. They have different requirements, different entitlements, and come through different authorities. It’s not illegal, and they’re not talking about living in sin. They *are* following the law of the land. I don’t recall the Bible saying marriage required the government’s approval (and we already noted circumstances where we’d disobey it anyway). It seems shady, at first, I agree. But I think we need to be careful that our reasons hold up all the way down. And I don’t think this is a matter of spirituality as much as tax-law legalese.
    March 3 at 6:47pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale If we go with your proposal that marriage is strictly spiritual and not governed by civil law, why would the Israelites have to go before someone in order to get a divorce? Why did they have to have a legal document saying they were divorced? I don’t know anywhere in the Bible where it says a spiritual marriage is not in any way governed by civil authority.
    March 3 at 6:54pm · Edited · Like
  • Jeff Laird Sarah, don’t forget that there’s a blending of spiritual and civil authority in the OT. With the questioner, what he’s considering is to pass on making a civil contract with the government, passing up those benefits, in order to retain different benefits he prefers. He didn’t say they were legally barred from being married. What others are suggesting here seems tantamount you saying secular government is the “real” arbiter of marriage.
    March 3 at 6:58pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale I don’t think a marriage is valid in our country without a civil document, because those are the laws. If the country’s laws are silent on the marriage then that is a different story. But we don’t get to say, I’m following God’s Law but ignoring civil law because I want to use civil law as I see fit. You are married or you aren’t married in our country and we have civil laws that govern it. Our process does not conflict with the Bible, so we must obey the law even if we don’t feel like it.
    March 3 at 7:03pm · Edited · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil You may use Romans 13 in your answer Wendyl Leslie.
    March 3 at 7:05pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale And while I really would love to continue the conversation, I feel it is a worthy one, I have six children to wrangle back into bed on my own. So I must bow out for the night. I’d love to read what you all write tomorrow.
    March 3 at 7:06pm · Edited · Like
  • Jeff Laird Again, a *civil* marriage requires a document. You can go to church and make any vows you want, without making any claim to legal entitlements. You can see a justice of the peace and get entitlements without a church. What this person proposes is not illegal. People keep saying they need to follow the law…they are. Why do they have to add civil contracts just because?
    March 3 at 7:06pm · Like
  • Jeff Laird Just for emphasis, since submission to authorities keeps coming up… there is no civil disobedience being proposed by the questioner. No violation of laws. Nobody is skirting the law, so far as I can tell.
    March 3 at 7:08pm · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb People got married long before there was such a thing as marriage licenses, beginning with Adam and Eve. If you openly and sincerely declare yourself married before God and man, and proceed to live together, you are married. This is even recognized in courts as “common law marriage.”
    March 3 at 7:37pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Yes Steve Ray Webb but that is unacceptable in other cultures.
    March 3 at 7:44pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield Jeff, It is contradictory. Simply stated, marriage has both a spiritual and civil context. I am saying that they are mutually inclusive in this country. You can’t have one without the other. Obviously, we see the issue that arises in the state of marriage when people neglect the spiritual aspect. But you are referring to marriage in a spiritual context outside of the civil (legal) context. In this country, there is no such animal…
    March 3 at 8:03pm · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil, if I am not mistaken we are talking American culture and U.S. courts. Common law marriage is so legally recognized and embedded in our system that it is fully recognized in our courts during legal proceedings.
    March 3 at 8:04pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Yes..but is it acceptable in US? I think it’s not based on my knowledge of American Christian culture.
    March 3 at 8:06pm · Edited · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield Steve, yes…common law marriage is recognized by the state. But the church calls it what it is…two unmarried couples living together. The procedure is clear… 1) If a couple is in love and wants to commit themselves to be married, they go before their church and commit go through the marriage ceremony. 2) If they are to do that, the civil law requires them to file for a license and pay the appropriate fees. In this country, the two (if done properly) go hand in hand. What this questioner is asking is whether he can avoid the civil requirement to avoid losing benefits. That is clearly ethically questionable at the least…which is not befitting a Christian walk.
    March 3 at 8:10pm · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil, yes, that is my point. It is acceptable in the eyes of the Law, sometimes to the extreme disappointment of individuals who do not want to consider themselves married after having lived together for years, and suddenly find themselves being sued for divorce.
    March 3 at 8:10pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil So that’s the point of the matter. Avoiding a legal predicament should not be at the expense of one’s walk with the Lord. That’s my point.
    March 3 at 8:14pm · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Stuart Mattfield, if I met a couple who openly declared themselves married and lived as if they were, I would consider them married and not question it. For that matter, few people have ever seen my marriage license and I am long removed from most people who attended my wedding many years ago. For all people know, I may or may not be officially married.
    March 3 at 8:14pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil But the the motive of the questioner is the issue NOT the cultural aspect of it.
    March 3 at 8:15pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield Steve, that is moral relativism…period. If a couple wished to be married and were truly walking a Christian walk, they would recognize both the significance of the event to the greater Crhistian body and the civll requirements that needed to be met, and be willing to meet them to show themselves blameless. Such an argument can be used by anyone who says, “I feel as if I’m married…therefore I am.” Interesting, the same arguments can be used to support same-sex marriage. Why do they need the church or civil authorities to bless it?
    March 3 at 8:19pm · Like · 1
  • Steve Ray Webb If the motive is to keep yourself financially solvent, while at the same time not misrepresenting yourself to those around you, that is a legitimate motive. Once again, this is not a matter of legality. They would not be doing anything illegal.
    March 3 at 8:20pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Common law marriage is also recognized here in our country but when they become Christians, the couple is encouraged by the church to fulfill the requirements of the law (for them to be legally married if there are no legal impediments to carry that out) for their conscience’s sake and for the good testimony of the Church in the community.
    March 3 at 8:24pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Stuart Mattfield Jeff, just to address one last thing..the original question was, “”Whenever I get married would it be wrong just to have a wedding ceremony without a marriage license so I can keep my disability benefits because that is my only income?” In other words, he’s getting married…he doesn’t want to file for a license because doing so would cause him ot lose benefits. The law undoubtedly requires one to file for a license to be married. He’s not doing so to avoid the implications of the law (i.e. no disability if married). If it’s not illegal, he’s certainly skirting it.
    March 3 at 8:22pm · Like · 1
  • Steve Ray Webb Stuart Mattfield, I firmly disagree. Marriage is a God-given institution. It is not a man-given one. If you are married before God and man you are married. A piece of paper neither makes or breaks a marriage. Marriages have long been held without legal pieces of paper and will continue to be held that way.
    March 3 at 8:24pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Steve Ray Webb that’s true in a morally relativistic perspective.
    March 3 at 8:26pm · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil, again I firmly disagree. Governments and bureaucrats do not define marriage. They simply do not. And they even tacitly admit it by providing for common law marriage. If I learned that someone in my church had had a church wedding and had proceeded to live as husband and wife, but had not actually obtained a wedding license. I would accept them as husband and wife, with all the same marital responsibilities and obligations as any other couple. And, in fact, in the eyes of the law they would be married, license or no license.
    March 3 at 8:34pm · Like
  • Stuart Mattfield Steve…I understand what you are saying about marriage being a God-given institution…we have no argument there. But there is no argument you can make that says that the church or the government in this country (among others) do not recognize that there is a now a a civil requrirement that goes along with marriage. We can agree that the Spiritual aspect is the most important. But there is nothing in Scripture that should make us think it is okay to ignore the civil requirement (which is not unjust) just because we feel it doesn’t apply. This falls firmly under the “give unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s” policy that Jesus was speaking about. Taxes are a man made policy…are you saying we no longer need to pay them? Speed limits are also man made…are we no longer bound by them? Yes, marriage is God-instituted as is the church, but we have long acknowledged (as did the early church) that the Christian life exists inside of a context of responsible obedience to civil authority. You’ll have the last word, as I’m calling it a night.
    March 3 at 8:34pm · Like
  • Tim White Marriage is truly an institution established by God and not by government. Government is an institution established by God to protect and serve the populace. Romans 13 states that God ordains government and truly He is sovereign over it. Prov. 21:1 states that kings (rulers/governments) rule but God directs. It is extremely naive to believe that government has no place in regulating the benefits and responsibilities it has been assigned in marriage/family matters.
    March 3 at 8:35pm · Like · 1
  • Jeff Laird The law requires a license in order to claim civil marriage benefits, which they do not plan to claim. Claim the (secular) benefits, lose the (secular) disability. We keep talking as if it’s illegal to be in a committed, sexual, monogamous cohabiting relationship unless you file for approval from the county. In other words, he’s getting married, the law allows him to participate in religious rites, but does not require him to ask for civil benefits. The state would be fine if they lived in sin; it’s not illegal or hidden. I agree that things should be done on the up-and-up, but I think my view is the one that defends our position on SSM. If the state’s stamp of approval is *required* for a marriage to be morally acceptable…that opens a can of worms. We need to be ready to point out that SSM isn’t “marriage”, because secular laws *don’t* define what a real marriage is. And, in a parallel point, there’s no secular benefit to SSM since the secular purpose of those entitlements is about childrearing. We don’t want to fork over tacit authority to the unbelieving world to define an institution that’s not theirs to control. The legal/financial/tax benefits are not an intrinsic part of Biblical marriage.
    March 3 at 8:37pm · Like
  • Tim White I agree, that we are going to disagree.
    March 3 at 8:43pm · Like · 2
  • Steve Ray Webb I am not saying to avoid taxes by using illegal means, although our taxes are being used for such evil purposes that I am in favor of starving our govenment of taxes whenever possible – but that is another subject under the heading of civil disobedience. I also recognize that there is a place for government to legally recognize marriage, but I believe that is being fully taken into account via common law marriage. I refuse to let man-made government define a God-made institution.
    March 3 at 8:44pm · Like · 1
  • Sarah Van Baale A few thoughts and observations:

    1) Common Law marriage is not recognized in most states, and those states that have recognized it in the past are phasing it out for a variety of reasons. Most courts, also, no longer recognize common law marriage. S    o I think there is some misinformation regarding this type of “civil marriage.”

    2) A covenant/contract which is only spiritual in nature would also have a physical aspect to it. For instance, if a person was only spiritually married but filled out paperwork indicating that they were single for civil purposes, he/she would be misrepresenting their status. Furthermore, God was not pleased with Abram when he misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Sarai. For civil purposes, he described Sarai as his sister (partial truth) instead of disclosing their full relationship as a married couple. God didn’t bless this type of behavior at the time, nor would He today.
    Yesterday at 5:10am · Like
  • Wendyl Leslie Many kind thanks to all of you who “participated” in what turned out to be a friendly little debate. In my response to the questioner I basically indicated that the GQ ministry had some issues with what he was asking us about. I included in it’s entirety an article on our website that addressed his concerns. You can find it at: What does the Bible say about the concept of a common law marriage? at http://www.gotquestions.org/common-law-marriage.html

    What does the Bible say about the concept of a common law marriage?
    What does the Bible say about the concept of a…
    GOTQUESTIONS.ORG
    18 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement