The world is about to be witness the royal wedding of Harry and Meghan at Windsor Castle officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. The Rt. Rev. David Conner, Dean of Windsor, will conduct the service at St. George’s Chapel. The Most Reverend Michael Curry will give the sermon. Curry is an American and the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, a U.S. branch of the Church of England.

Few people know the difference in Reverend, Right Reverend, Very Reverend, and Most Reverend. Fact is, Psalms 111:9 informs us about God, “holy and reverend is his name.” Most Bible believing preachers don’t like the use of reverend because of that verse. And there is no biblical justification for Right, Very, and Most Reverends just as there is no foundation for Archbishop and Cardinal.

Now that I have caused heartburn in many Americans and many others on the other side of the pond, I can focus on the issue at hand: weddings.

After the royal ceremony ends, the wedding party will leave Windsor Castle in a carriage pulled by Windsor Grey horses. The guests will attend a reception hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at St. George’s Hall ending the public’s part. The bride and groom will attend a smaller reception for about 200 friends and family at Frogmore House.

In earlier days, a chivaree would occur when the royal couple finally retire to their apartment for the evening.

I was about five years old living in a log cabin on a creek bank in West Virginia when I saw my one and only chivaree called belling in West Virginia, Ohio, and other areas. I remember a large group of people, loud noises, yelling, boisterous singing, horn blowing, and pan pounding. It was my introduction to the honoring of a married couple by their family and friends following their wedding ceremony. Such was common in Appalachia and other parts of the south but it almost died out by the mid-1950s. Chivaree was a combination of trick-or-treating, fraternity hazing, and Christmas caroling.

When I was married in the 50s, my brother and good friends disabled my car, wrote all over it, tied cans to the bumper, and followed us through Huntington until I outran them to our honeymoon destination at the Log Cabin Motel in Catlettsburg, Kentucky a few miles away. That was a very mild version of a chivaree.

The chivaree usually was organized by a family member of the bride or groom who gathered a crowd soon after the wedding outside the couples’ home. Sometimes this took place a few days after the wedding. In America, it was always considered an honor and was common knowledge by everyone but was not discussed with the couple. The couple always had drinks and other treats available. During frontier days, booze was often expected. If the wedding took place on a wagon train, the men would rock the honeymoon wagon until it almost tipped over. Of course, the wedding couple had just settled down after their wedding.

One Kansas newspaper provides the following description of a chivaree: “They performed such tricks as shooting bullets through the windows, breaking down the door, dragging the couple out of bed and tumbling them about on the floor, and indulging in other equally innocent tricks.” The editor added, “It requires backbone to get married out this way.” Few people still live in Kansas.

A chivaree in New Orleans was described: “The house is mobbed by thousands of the people of the town, vociferating and shouting with loud acclaim…Many are in disguises and masks; and all have some kind of discordant and noisy music, such as old kettles, and shovels, and tongs….All civil authority and rule seems laid aside.”

In Tampa, Florida in 1885, a huge chivaree was held in honor of local official, James T. Magbee’s wedding. It was “the wildest and noisiest of all the chivaree parties in Tampa’s history,” and was attended by “several hundred” men and lasted “until near daylight.” The music produced during the chivaree was reportedly “hideous and unearthly beyond description.”

Usually, after newlyweds turned off the light, the crowd started beating on pans, yelling as loud as possible, setting off firecrackers, waving lanterns and flaming torches, shooting guns, playing screeching musical instruments, and chanting or singing until the sheepish couple appeared at the door. That was followed by the couple distributing drinks, candy, and cookies to the crowd.

Depending on the couple and their celebrants, the couple was thrown into the river or into a horse watering tank to the shouting of “chivaree, chivaree!”

In some parts of the U.S., the bride was wheeled about in a wheelbarrow and the groom was tied to a greased pole and carried around town. Often cowbells were tied under their wedding bed. This unique wedding celebration was very mild when compared with its counterparts in Europe.

Chivaree (shivaree in some parts of America and Canada) is French for “rough music” and probably originated in France and as in America, it was to celebrate a newly married couple. However, the custom evolved into a kind of social coercion to force an unmarried couple to “tie the knot” and elevate the moral standards of the town. It was also used to show community disapproval of wife beaters, unmarried mothers, and of remarriage of older widows or widowers.

The custom spread to other parts of Europe.

The moral police in various European cities used the chivaree to send a clear message to an offending married couple. Many of the songs revealed the community’s disgust for adulterers. If a couple had remarried “too soon” after a death of a spouse, the noises represented the scream of the late husband or wife and his or her disapproval of the new marriage. Of course, the do-gooders never tried to prove the basis of their outrage.

If a marriage was not consummated (not sure how that was discovered) chivaree was used to punish the couple. In the 1500s, Martin Guerre in the village of Artigat, France married at the age of 14 and his wife did not get pregnant for eight years, so villagers ridiculed him, being sure that he could not meet the challenge of being a husband.

In 1683, a Quebec widow remarried only three weeks after the death of her husband and the people of the city “conducted a loud and strident” demonstration against the newlyweds at their home. Even though the couple was already married, the town was expressing their moral outrage.

The community do-gooders used humiliation to enforce their standards. If a couple refused to be contrite, they were ostracized and they often moved to another area. Sometimes a chivaree ended in murder or suicide. Shots were often fired and fighting was common.

In 1860, an English wife-beater was given a chivaree with the crowd chanting: “Has beat his wife! Has beat his wife! It is a very great shame and disgrace; To all who live in this place.” I’m not sure how he responded.

It is probable that the blowing of car horns and tying of cans to car bumpers along with disabling the couples’ car, and chasing the wedding couple through the city streets while pounding on their car doors and blowing horns are residuals of chivaree.

I’m all for moral standards, godly living, and strong marriages; however, it is not a mob’s responsibility to police and enforce their standards on others. Chivaree, as a good-natured way to honor newly married friends is one thing, but pushy busy-bodies acting as community police is another.

This practice might be considered a secular, twisted version of church discipline!

I’m glad chivaree is in the past. I don’t miss the “good old days.” I don’t think Harry and Meghan will miss them either.

Boys’ book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Marriage has been on a slippery slope since God performed the first wedding ceremony in Eden to Lamech taking a second wife to Christ’s appearance at the marriage in Cana down to the dismal state of marriage today.

Marriage scholar Lawrence Stone noted that in the Middle Ages marriage was “treated as a private contract between two families . . . For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals enforced by the community sense of what was right.” Indeed, marriage wasn’t even regulated by law in Britain until the Marriage Acts of 1754 and 1835 as I have documented in other columns. Marriage is a family and church affair not a state function.

I refuse to obey the Supreme Court ruling. Same sex “marriage” is impossible no matter what they and others say. Declaring something does not make it true. The Supremes and their acolytes are living in a dream world. That means they are delusional. Many pastors have taken the position that the state should have nothing to do with weddings: no forms, no application, no approval, and no involvement at all. Weddings should be done by churches that set their own standards. Of course, basic protection must be required such as age, relationship, etc. Couples, with approval of parents are writing their own vows and are united by their local pastor who signs a covenant along with the couple. Such weddings are then registered at the county courthouse.

While weddings should be holy, they are often turned into mockery with nutty “vows” spoken as a sappy couple jumped out of an airplane, vows taken in prison, and now the happy couple is a dead couple in South Africa! A dead Johannesburg “couple” was married recently! Seems a man shot his pregnant fiancée dead then killed himself. They were “married” posthumously a few days after the murder/suicide. The news account said their family and friends “wanted to remember them as a happy couple destined for a happy life together.” Happy couple! What nonsense. To think they killed a tree to print such tripe.

In front of 250 guests, an Aussie couple was married nude wearing only their wedding rings and a stupid expression. Another couple was married at T. J. Maxx; another in a morgue after the groom was murdered; another inside a shark tank with the groom wearing a traditional black wetsuit and the bride in an all-white wetsuit. Another couple vowed to be faithful “for as long as we can stand each other.” Still another promised to be faithful “through fat and skinny.”

Jerks, trying to be cute, or flippant, or profane, have taken their weddings into the dirt. But, at least, they did get married, except for the dead ones. That’s wacky but better than living like barn-yarn animals.

In ancient, uncouth civilizations it was a custom of young men to capture the bride of his choice usually from another tribe and when men became more civilized it became simulated, not actual.
Marriage by capture was common in many cultures being the normal entrance into marriage. Judges 21 provides a good example of marriage by kidnapping. Often a man had help from his friends and relatives to assure the success of the capture. That was wrong.

Kidnapping of brides is still practiced and is in fact increasing in the Caucasus region and in parts of Mexico, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. The modern honeymoon harkens back to the ancient couple hiding out for a few weeks from discovery. Hopefully within a month, the bride would be pregnant and her family would resign themselves to the marriage. Moreover, the family would acquiesce to the marriage because of the stigma of the couple living together for a few weeks.

From actual seizure they later thought it more civilized to purchase a wife. At times a man exchanged one of his female relatives for his desired bride and at other times he served the bride’s father for an agreed period of time. Jacob working for Laban to get his daughter is the first Biblical example. Of course, Jacob got more than he expected. He had to work fourteen years to get the girl he wanted. In Genesis 29 when Jacob told Laban, his future father-in-law, that he wanted his wife, Laban called for his neighbors and friends to come to a feast after which Jacob took her to his bedroom. The same thing happened in Judges 14 when Samson was married and had a feast for his friends but Samson didn’t get her to his bed, but his best friend did!

Then there were festival times when it was acceptable for a girl to capture the husband of her dreams by “netting” him usually while he was asleep. The modern custom of females proposing to men during Leap Year is a carry-over of this custom.

It was also normal to get a wife by purchase as in the case of Jacob, Ruth, and Hosea. David also purchased Michal, King Saul’s daughter, with 200 Philistine foreskins according to I Samuel 18! Kings often gave their daughters to other kings (or their sons) to cement their national relationships thereby guaranteeing peace. No doubt many of Solomon’s marriages were political marriages. Of course, those multiple, heathen marriages were wrong whatever the reasons.

Some men got wives for their acts of valor as in the case of David. It was promised that whoever killed Goliath would get many rewards including the daughter of King Saul.

When a girl left her home to be a wife, her family was given a dowry since they were losing a major asset who provided labor (income) to the family. So the man got a wife and the wife’s family got the dowry. It was not looked upon as a wedding gift. Everyone was happy.

Couples married very young in the Old Testament days, always with parents’ permission, but by the New Testament times, regulations required the boy to be 13 and the girl 12. If a young husband died, his wife was taken in marriage by his brother or close relative. You may remember that this is the foundation for Ruth and Boaz. Such an arrangement is known as levirate marriage. That was worthy in that place and time.

Starcke and Westermarck, confirmed earlier conclusions that “marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91). So it is incorrect for apostles of permissiveness to suggest that marriage of a man and woman are of recent origin. They go back to the Garden of Eden!

So even less than perfect marriages (and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage) are the norm back to the beginning of time. That takes into account unhappy marriages and those that don’t last. The ideal is ideal.

Yes, some marriage ceremonies are wacky, some wrong, and worthy! What kind was yours?

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

In the fourth century, fearful of the world’s influence and thinking they were obedient to God, some Christians gathered into monasteries never seeing another person outside the cloister for years. Others worked in the fields while still others begged in the towns. They thought that if they tortured themselves it would produce holiness but it only produced pain. They totally withdrew from the world (culture) and that was wrong. We are to engage the culture without it changing us.

We must understand that there is no efficacy in punishing oneself, wearing ragged or squalid clothing, having a dirty face, body odor, unbrushed teeth, offensive personal habits, or living in filth and defilement. Such things drive people away from Christ rather than to Him. Some people are impressed by those weirdoes who fled society and lived in the desert, refused to marry, slept on the floor or hard bunks, ate turnip soup and hard bread and beat themselves from time to time. We are not impressed! That nonsense is fleeing the world not confronting the world. As often happens, humans have a tendency to go to extremes.

The culture laughs at biblical beliefs and practices as quaint, if not archaic. (Note that these are the people who butcher babies; preach perversion as good and desirable; puncture and print words and images on their bodies; watch debased, despicable, and disgraceful television and movies; think nothing of going to bed with strangers; etc.) They smile when we suggest that the common practice of dating is demeaning, destructive, even devastating to youth. They laugh out loud when we recommend that a young man actually court a young lady after requesting permission from the parents! Dating has proved a failure; courtship works.

A young man shows interest in a young lady. He is impressed with her character, charm, courtesy, but mainly her commitment to Christ. She would be an ideal lifetime spouse so he approaches her father for permission to court her. (That raucous laughter you hear from sea to shining sea is a reaction but not a rebuttal. There is a difference.)

With the fathers’ permission, the courting starts and may last many months until the couple and the parents agree that the match is well-made and meets the Bible’s qualifications. The dates will be supervised by a parent or sibling! (as eyes roll across the fruited plain.) A wedding date is set a couple months in the future after consulting with their pastor.

Arrangements are made for a series of counseling sessions to take place between the couple and the pastor and his wife. During those sessions, the couple is taught the basic facts about marriage. She is to be a chaste, gracious, thoughtful, obedient wife and he is to love, cherish and honor her. He is to provide for her and any future children and they will rear those children according to their agreed on rules. She will keep a clean, orderly home that he will be thrilled to return to each day.

The couple will discuss various aspects of marriage such as having children; how they are to be taught and disciplined; whether or not she will work outside the home; etc. They will agree that during disagreements, they will use the Bible as their guide Book. If there are differences that cannot be settled between them, they will seek Christian counselling. In the event of unfaithfulness they will not seek a divorce but will continue Christian counselling. If there is no possibility of reconciliation, they will wait six months before getting a divorce.

After the couple agrees on the basics of the understanding, they will choose their attendants, wedding attire, caterer, flower shop, etc. At the big day, the preacher will do the normal ceremony but at the end he will not say the wedding was done by the power of the state but by the authority of the family and maybe the local church officials. The happy couple will drive to the county courthouse and record the fact of their wedding, leave for their honeymoon, and return home to “set up housekeeping.” The wife will change her last name to that of her husband and inform everyone that she is his wife.

They will keep the wedding covenant as proof of their marriage, plus record it in the family Bible. Changes should be made on all insurance policies, wills, trusts, post office box, safety deposit box, and utilities. Everyone must know that the wedding has taken place.

There is a new family in town, joined by God not the state!

(Ninth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

The Bible teaches that a wife is a help meet to her husband (not a slave, servant, or subject) and he is to cleave unto her protecting her with his life if necessary. Since the Garden of Eden he battled the bugs, beetles, and briars to provide food to eat, and she has provided him children, many children, especially boys. In that day his word was law and binding on wife and children, and if she disagreed with him, she did so discreetly. In I Samuel 25, Abigail did not confront her husband Nabal when he acted a fool in relationship to King David. She was a woman “of good understanding, and a beautiful countenance” and she used discretion in disagreeing with her husband. A wife is a fool if she disparages, denigrates, or even disagrees with her husband in the presence of others. It could destroy him and the marriage.

While the Bible clearly provides the pattern for a solid, successful, and spiritual home life, there have been many attempts to second guess God or to suggest that His way is too restrictive. It started early in man’s history in Genesis 4 when Lamech took two wives. (He was also a killer.) Later even Abraham took concubines and it has been going downhill ever since. While God permitted plural marriages in the Old Testament, He never endorsed them. He gave mankind the pattern for the family in Genesis when He provided one wife for Adam. In fact, there are only 15 examples of polygamy up to the time of Solomon and only four or five after that to the time of Christ!

Various societies have tried multiple wives such as the Mormons in the U.S. They practiced polygamy until it was outlawed although some fringe Mormons out west still illegally practice polygamy.

Many people would ask: “Why would polygamy be attractive to people since many men find it a challenge to take care of one woman?” Through the centuries it would have been the scarcity of men as a result of wars resulting in numerous unmarried females, the desire for more offspring, a barren wife, cementing political units, and other reasons but probably the main reason is common, everyday lust on the part of men.

There is even a warped, wacky, worldly group that promotes polygamy among Bible-believing Christians as a Scriptural way of life! Their website defines itself “as a Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing” organization. Even though the focus is about Christian Polygamy, the Gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is still held as “above all else.” They are a parachurch group that has the interest in promoting polygamy among Christian churches as their only motivation. They go to extremes to disassociate themselves from Mormon polygamy.
Christ made it clear that polygamy was not acceptable in Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-2; and Luke 16:18. It is amazing how men can justify anything if they play around with it long enough.

Another form of “family” is the union where multiple men live with one woman: polyandry. Polyandry is fairly common in the animal kingdom, and it has been practiced at various times by a considerable number of people or tribes. It existed among the primitive Arabs, the early American Indians, the Hottentots, and the inhabitants of India, Ceylon, and New Zealand. Along India’s Malabar Coast a female is permitted to marry several men if they are of equal or superior rank, while in Tibet, a woman may marry the eldest brother of a family and get all his brothers in the deal. It was common in polyandrous marriages for all the husbands to be brothers with the original husband being the top honcho or number one husband. He had more privileges than the others.

Polyamory is a simultaneous and multiple sexual relationships that has been practiced in various cults and some religious groups.

Other individuals don’t pretend to have a formal family arrangement but sleep with anyone of the opposite sex assuming they are at room temperature: promiscuity. The number of people, young and old, living a promiscuous life is shocking and the rise in STDs is a sure indication.

Still more shocking are those living in perversion or as some call it, same-sex “marriage.” The Bible calls it sodomy. So do I.

God’s plan is simple and it works: a man is to marry a woman and spend the rest of his life trying to make her the happiest person in the world. He is to provide, protect, and promote her wellbeing. He is to cherish her and be physically, mentally, and spiritually faithful to her until the undertaker slams the lid on his casket.

The wife is to meet her husband’s needs–even desires, keep a clean home, produce a brood of well-behaved children who will grow up to produce loving, obedient, kind grandchildren. She will obey him and treat him like a king knowing that he in turn will treat her like a queen.

With the passage of the years and the addition of twenty or thirty pounds and his hair turning gray (or turning loose) they will grow old together still in love and more committed than ever. The flame will still be burning and while there may be no danger of setting the woods on fire, that’s alright too.

This is sure: the Bible never condones multiply wives, concubines, or prostitutes nor does it give government the authority to approve marriages.

(Eighth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Use a Covenant Not State Contract for Marriages!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

“But what if a man wanted to marry his goat?” Well, other laws would kick in that would prohibit that. Most states have laws against bestiality or even animal rights laws would prevail! After all, how can an animal give permission? There are people who consider themselves married to their goat, horse, or dog at this present time.

My critics will argue that promiscuity, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and perversion would become widespread but taking the state out of marriages would not make it any worse than now. Everyone knows that millions of people are living promiscuously in a nation where an unmarried male could not be in a hotel room with an unmarried female only 60 years ago. Some couples change bed partners as often as they change their socks. Maybe more often.

As to polygamy, it is rather common (although illegal) in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and other western states where Mormons have been influential for a hundred years. In recent years, Muslims have been added to the mix making multiple wives more common. Two ways to go with this issue: Let each state permit or prohibit polygamy in the interest of society. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that any sexual arrangement will be permissible.

Less known is the act of polyandry where a woman has more than one husband. In some societies, a woman marries a man and gets all his brothers in the deal. Again, let states permit it or prohibit it in society’s interest. Whatever becomes legal, God will have the final word!

In recent years perversion has become acceptable, approved, even applauded in most states so what will preachers do when they are told that they must perform same-sex “marriages” since they perform natural marriages? They should stop doing any state-approved weddings and limit all weddings to couples they know. Preachers should not wait until they are kicked out of the wedding business by the state. We (for I did like everyone else for many years) never should have taken a license to perform weddings in the first place. If a grandchild asked me to perform his or her wedding approved by the state, I would refuse.

If a state has the authority to permit you to get married, they can tell you that you cannot. So will you obey them? You say it is God’s will for you to marry, then why ask the state? If a state prohibited members of a specific denomination from getting married, should they obey that law? No sane Christian would agree they should. One of my oldest friends was a missionary in Spain and told me that the government refused to permit Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to marry. Marriage licenses had to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church and such permission often took many months, if given at all, so the Christians simply had their wedding ceremonies, without a license, as they had been doing for centuries. Later, the government relented and anyone could get a license; however “they also had a civil ceremony before a judge.” If we agree with that, we have lost the battle.

Medieval Christians disregarded the law and married without any “required” approval from the state. In 1551, Baptists in Europe refused to be married by the clergy of the dominant church, but were united in marriage in the church of which they were a member. Their enemies charged them with encouraging licentiousness. Having unapproved marriages in their own church brought scorn and false accusations upon them but they refused to obey the government. John Bunyan and others in England went to jail rather than permit the government to license them to preach, baptize, marry, and bury the dead.

My suggestion: Take the state and federal government totally out of the wedding business. Permit any church to marry any couple who is willing to satisfy the church’s requirements, rules, and regulations. Then the state would recognize any church-approved weddings without any state approval. The couple could then record their marriage at the county courthouse thereby recognizing the legitimacy of any children, and protecting property of heirs, Social Security, insurance beneficiaries, retirement plans, etc.

Government officials could still perform weddings, usually of atheists or anti-religious individuals but they would be no more official than those performed by a pastor of a small store-front church in Harlem or Houston.

Astute thinkers are looking ahead and asking “But what about divorce?” First of all, most of the pastors I know who use a marriage covenant will not marry any couple who does not eschew divorce. Marriage is for a lifetime. However, in a broken world divorces happen. It would be no problem to expect state regulations to kick in although they would be as unfair, unreasonable, and unworkable as the present circumstances. The premise is that no government has authority to control marriage; but in breaking up a home, children and innocent parties must be protected by law just as the state is responsible to keep the peace, enforce contracts, protect the public, etc. In other words, continuing the massive failure that is taking place now.

To those who yell “inconsistent,” I reply that they have not thought the issue through. Slavery, concubines, and multiple wives were never approved by God but He did provide guidelines for those who broke His pattern of one man–one woman, for life. If a man held slaves, contrary to God’s will, the slave owner must treat the slaves well and set them free in the seventh year. So if men did not obey God, it was wrong; but they had to exist and God made provision for the innocent parties to survive.

Friends of mine who only marry couples with a “marriage covenant” usually give each couple a family Bible and record the fact of the marriage, date, and witnesses, along with signatures of witnesses as proof of their marriage. Such a record has always been valid in every state.

If two atheists or a same-sex “couple” choose to “marry,” the couple could announce their marriage in the local paper, have it recorded at the county court house and “set up housekeeping.” Again, no church or government would be involved or give permission.

If we the people take back authority from the states, especially concerning marriage, then same-sex “marriage” becomes a moot issue. However, that is not the reason for getting the state out of marriages but it is a very good consequence.

If the state can permit marriages, it can prohibit marriages. Would you obey?

(Seventh of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Biblical Marriage, Not Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Promiscuity or Perversion is Acceptable!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

You have a birth certificate because you were born; a death certificate because you died and a marriage certificate because you were married. You did not ask to be born or to die and should not ask any government or church to be married.

The road to family control by the state started rather early in America with Virginia’s first legal code consisting of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Anglican ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages, and burials they performed. (Government has no authority to require a preacher to do anything regarding his ministry.) In 1631, the Virginia House of Burgesses created marriage licenses tightening the knot around the neck of families.

Down through the centuries, marriage was changed from being a family affair to having churches and the government as the permission-givers! A license is “permission by competent authority to do that which otherwise would be illegal, a trespass or a torte.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a marriage license is “a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony.”

So, at that time, an interracial couple had to get permission not from their parents or church to get married, but from the state! Why? People had been marrying since the beginning of time without any government involvement, but now a couple must get legal permission! Therefore, the state began to issue a license permitting one to do what he normally could not do because many U.S. colonies in the late 1600s prohibited marriage between Whites and Blacks, Indians, Asians, etc., although it was never illegal for two whites to marry and no permission was required until recent years.

When a slave boy got permission from the master to marry a slave girl, the offspring from the marriage belonged to the master and became part of his assets or chattel. Some states take that same approach today. After all, they give the license so any issue of a marriage is state-owned; therefore the state assumes the authority to force children to have shots, to attend school, etc.

In early America, some slave owners prohibited slave marriages and others permitted them, even giving lavish dinners and ceremonies at the “big house” to honor the couple. However, the marriage never superseded the slave owner’s authority. Often, depending on the plantation owners and the state, black men were not permitted to marry and sex between slaves was often punished. However, many masters wanted new slaves coming along so in some places, black male slaves were kept for the purpose of producing young offspring! It was normal for the owners of such studs to receive one out of four of the babies.

One Texas slave woman said that slave women had to always be available for sex at the appointment of the master (often with the master) and she had to live with any man of his choosing. The reason most slave owners permitted slave marriages, although often reluctantly, was because of religious reasons. Many tried to justify slavery by the Bible but the Bible clearly teaches personal morality and family. The Bible never condones slavery.

The slave marriage ceremony varied from state to state and plantation to plantation. If the marriage involved two plantations then the man was often permitted to visit his wife’s plantation on the weekends. With adjoining plantations, a wife was permitted to visit her husband each night.

Marriage unions were formed when the couple jumped over a broomstick together and dissolved by reversing the process. A broomstick marriage was an illegal marriage, solemnized, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, by having each party jump over a broomstick as the couple told everyone they were married while holding hands. It is probable that 20% of the U.S. population during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may have lived in an illegal relationship as a replacement or rejection of formal marriages. The broomstick weddings and the divorce by jumping back over the broom were common. Jumping the broom was always done before witnesses as a public ceremonial announcement that a couple chose to become as close to married as was then permitted. I believe such marriages were as legal as those done in America today as long as there was consent, commitment, consummation, and communication.

On other plantations, each one had to jump backward over a broom that was held about a foot from the floor. In the event one did not clear the broom successfully, the other received the authority to be boss of the household. Moreover, if both partners were successful, there would be no “bossin.” Strange custom but not much stranger than some sophisticated wedding I’ve attended. Jumping the broom is much better than getting drunk and falling into the swimming pool!

The broomstick marriage was also known in Ireland. The marriage was not officially recognized if either touched the broom. In this kind of marriage, a woman kept her own home and did not become the property of her husband. It was a partnership, and a child of the marriage was considered to be legitimate. If the couple decided to divorce, they simply jumped back over the broomstick again, but that could only be done during the first year of marriage. If a child had been born, that child was the father’s responsibility.

In the mid-1800s in the United States, common-law marriages were valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate such marriages. Common-law-marriages were recognized as legitimate even though there was no license permitting the marriage. Eleven states still recognize such marriages.

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Politicians love power.

The state was now in control of marriage and had become the master, or is that monster? Let’s get all government out of all Christian marriages since it is a God-given, unalienable right of man to marry a wife and bear children and no authority on earth has the right to supersede that right–or to regulate it.

(Sixth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Taking the State Out of Marriages Could Not Make it Worse!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Marriage and the family survived 6,000 years, yet in the last 60 years both have been damaged, denigrated, almost destroyed; however, marriage should be the most cherished function in society since in establishing marriage God provided for the continuation of the human race. Marriage is a safe haven on a tempestuous sea of troubles, trials, and temptations and has been known for thousands of years to have a civilizing effect on men. Men have been known traditionally to “clean up their act” when they took a wife. Marriage also tends to protect women and children physically, emotionally, and financially. The “civilizing effect” has made a incredible impact upon every nation.

Marriage and the family are under attack from hedonists, homosexuals, and humanists, and since marriage is our most important social act, we should know its source and foundation. Most people would agree that whatever the kind of wedding, the key should be commitment. Not like a movie star and her famous fiancé who announced at their engagement that their marriage would be different. They each had a tattoo of the other’s name on their rears, but they didn’t even make it to the altar! Without commitment, even branding on the rear end does no good.

Marriage with commitment also adds zest, excitement, pleasure, contentment, and is very rewarding to each person. Married people are twice as happy as divorced and cohabitating couples and married people also live longer and are healthier than unmarried people. Single men drink twice as much as married men and also smoke more, so it is not surprising that married men live longer. There is less suicide and mental illness among married people, and there is also less likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease within marriage than outside marriage.

Young people growing up in a normal family are less likely to be involved in homosexual activity since they have a strong male image and observe and understand what a normal family should be. It also helps if they are taught that God forbids such sinful activity. According to the American Medical Association “homosexual youth are 23 times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals.” Sounds to me like a good reason to be married to one of the opposite sex!

Since single people are not as contented as married people, the singles are more lonely and at higher risk of depression. Furthermore, “couples who cohabit before marriage are much more likely to split up later. And 86 percent of couples in unhappy marriages report being happier five years later if they stay married.” Women who live with a boyfriend are four times more likely to be abused and their children are 40 times more likely to be physically abused!

Married people far surpass unmarried people in accumulating and maintaining their wealth and worldly possessions. In fact, married people are worth twice what unmarried people are worth.

Married people say that married sex is better than unmarried sex according to a report by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher in their The Case for Marriage. “Married women are almost twice as likely as divorced or never-married women to have a sex life that (a) exists and (b) is extremely emotionally satisfying.” The message is to choose your spouse carefully, stay faithful, and stay married.

Everyone, except rabid fanatics, agree that children do better in homes where there are married two-parent (male and female) families. The children have greater success in school, experience fewer problems with the legal system, and are less likely to use drugs, tobacco or be promiscuous. They are also 20 times less likely to be physically abused. God’s plan for the family works!

The studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So marriage pays in every way.

I suggest that government stay out of marriage and family and permit rude, crude, and lewd men to continue to be influenced and civilized by decent, dedicated, and determined ladies.

(Fifth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage License Was to Permit Interracial Marriages!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Up until the reign of Justinian (527-565 AD), simply saying you were married was enough to establish a family. The famous Code of Justinian set some parameters for the family: any man could take a concubine but she had to be at least 12 years old. When a man lived with a free woman, it was not considered concubinage but genuine matrimony if she did not acquire financial gain by selling her body.

In 866 AD, Pope Nicholas I said “Let the simple consent of those whose wedding is in question be sufficient; if the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” Consent was what made marriages valid and endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, then a power throughout Europe. There was no church involvement in marriages until about the ninth century other than Pope Nicholas’ decree and after the twelfth century prayers were added to the ceremony often by the bride and groom.

Up to the twelfth century, a consummated marriage was considered valid if the couple had pledged their love and commitment to each other even without any civil or church involvement or approval. Roman Catholic Church leaders thought that such an arrangement was far better than concubinage or jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit. A consummated and committed marriage would also tend to repel seducers.

Then in 1215 the Roman Catholic Church required all churches in England and Wales to publish banns (a proclamation) three Sundays before any wedding. That period of time permitted objections to be made such as an accusation that one of the two was already married or underage, or they were closely related, etc. Furthermore, the marriage had to be performed in their parish church. In the 1300s, if a couple wanted to marry quickly, the church instituted a license (permission) for the banns to be avoided. The license also permitted them to be married in another parish as well. Of course, there was a fee required accompanied by a sworn declaration that there was no canonical reason to prohibit the marriage.

Many then perceived marriage by banns as a second-class ceremony; consequently, that led to an increase in the number of marriages by license. Most of the marriages done with a license were for special purposes such as a wedding done outside the usual hours for weddings or in a church not normally approved for weddings. These weddings could be done quickly without waiting three weeks to have the marriage announced in church. Another perceived benefit was confidentiality since some people did not want the town to know that they did not have an approved wedding years earlier.

After the twelfth century, Church approval of marriages was required and after 1563 a priest was required at every wedding. Peasants in some European countries were required to have permission of the lord of the manor and in some places the lord reserved the right to spend the wedding night with the bride. Just one of his perks.

Then the Council of Trent, organized as a frantic response to the Reformation in the mid-1500s, also took up the problem of secret or “clandestine” marriages without satisfying those people who were for or against. The French wanted to outlaw all secret marriages and marriages without parental approval, but the Council refused to make parental approval a requisite for valid marriages. Secret marriages were very popular because young people wanted to choose their own spouses rather than have parents choose. A young girl whose parents had arranged her marriage at birth, would say, “But, Mom, I was secretly married last year.” However, the Council did abolish secret marriages where only the bride and groom were present.

Such secret marriages had been recognized as “true marriages,” but there were problems. It was common for a man to secretly marry then change his mind after a few months or years. He met another woman and then publicly married her with all the necessary requirements met. However, he was already secretly married and had two children. What about his responsibilities to them? His former wife could not prove their secret marriage and was stranded up a creek in a leaking canoe without a paddle, along with two hungry, screaming children! How could a court hold a man accountable without some proof of the secret marriage? If the court came to her defense, supported only by her word, then all marriages could be in danger. An unscrupulous woman could choose an attractive married man and charge that he was her secret mate. It was a can of worms.

The problem was an old one. When a couple had problems and split, there was no way for the aggrieved party to prove his or her marriage by an independent witness. The Council sought to solve this oft-occurring problem by decreeing that if a couple admitted to a secret marriage it was considered a “grave sin” and they were required to renew their vows in the local church attended by three witnesses, one of them being the local priest. The priest did not make the marriage valid; the man and woman did that with vows of commitment. The priest was there as a representative of the Church and registered the marriage. The priest was often the only person in town who could read and write so he was a natural choice to keep a record of important events such as marriage.

The Council of Trent declared that people who had been secretly married would be considered married as long as the marriages were not invalidated by the Roman Catholic Church. Then the Council required that a marriage announcement must be published each Sunday for three consecutive weeks so that a planned marriage could be forbidden if anyone had a legitimate reason to prohibit the wedding. Finally the Council said that a marriage was not valid if anyone tried to be married without a priest (or his designate) as witness along with two other witnesses.

The Roman Church pushed its way further into the homes by requiring local priests to keep records of all baptisms and deaths as well as weddings. The grip was getting tighter and tighter and it must be remembered that in the Middle Ages in Europe, the Pope was literally over every person including the “sovereign” kings.

While the Council of Trent was agonizing with their decisions and trying to untie a Gordian Knot, the Protestant Reformers had declared that a public marriage was one that was consented to by the couples’ parents. If not, it was a clandestine or secret marriage and invalid. They took the position that a church was limited in its authority and that marriage is a fundamental right of an individual so only two people could create a marriage and did so by their public consent.

During the reign of England’s Henry VIII (1509 to 1547), marriage licenses were provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury (actually by King Henry) after 1534. Before that date, the Pope issued licenses. A common license permitted a couple to be married at their parish church while a special license permitted t a couple to be married any place. A special license was required for anyone not a member of an Anglican Church. Religious separatists were not pleased with that requirement and refused to obey it.

The Marriage Act of 1753 (full title, An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage) in England and Wales took control of marriage from the hands of family and vested it in the state. From the point at which the law took effect in 1754, marriages which had not taken place in the Church of England, Quaker Meetings or Jewish synagogues, were rendered invalid. This was the first time legislation required a formal marriage ceremony in England and Wales. This caused major problems with dissident Christians (Baptists) who held strong beliefs about marriage and strong reservations about state control and interference in their homes. The parents of an underage couple had to get a license from the government and the ceremony had to take place in a Church of England. Any future children were not permitted an inheritance if those conditions were not met by everyone, including Baptists.

This effectively did away with secret marriages and gave government more control which is common for all governments.

Baptists refused to obey the law that required marriages to be controlled by the state and Baptists and other groups are doing the same today: Government, stay out of our most important and sacred traditions. It is a legitimate marriage if there is consent, commitment, consummation, and communication in any little church in the dale and needs no one’s permission!

We don’t need or want, nor will we permit the government in our weddings.

(Fourth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage Makes Rude, Crude, and Lewd Men into Softies!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

All state officials want a stable society where citizens can live contented lives, pay taxes, and continue to reelect them to public office. Most officials know that families influence a city or state more favorably than gangs, nightclubs, honkytonks, or even schools, art museums, and most churches. A return to the historical and Biblical approach to marriage would not mean an increase in degrading, deviant, and deadly activities since they would continue as they are now.

Moreover, if a state wanted to encourage normal, one-man one-woman marriage relationships, they could do so by the tax code, the bully pulpit, etc., or a state could refuse to make any judgment on any family arrangements. Government would still prohibit marriage between close relatives, mentally handicapped, or minors since that would disrupt society.

As to requiring a blood test before marriage, the state could nullify those laws (as some have done) and permit each church to make its own rules. Many would decide that if a person falsified a blood test and proceeded with a wedding with one partner infected with an STD, that marriage would become null and void with announcements made to the congregation to that effect. The state would be notified to deal with the divorce and prosecute the offender.

Laws must require the protection of children of any marriage arrangement since children are the future and their training and character will determine the stability of the state. Any state can give benefits to normal marriages because it is in the interests of the state to do so. It seems society gives benefits to married people because a stable family provides benefits to society. The state is interested in a stable society, so it is in the interests of the state to have productive, educated adults therefore a state can reward parents who commit to preparing children for the future. Therefore, a state may give generous benefits to every marriage that produces children. If homosexual “couples” complain, the state can simply say, “When you have babies, you will receive the same benefits.” Of course, homosexuals can do as today and adopt children although it is very unwise to permit that.

Everyone, except the willfully blind, agrees that strong families benefit society so the state can justify giving benefits to natural marriages. It is only wise to do so. Proponents of other kinds of “marriages” will scream about the “unfairness” but so be it. Let them scream, after all, it was their decision to not have a natural marriage.

Adoptions, child welfare, divorce, alimony, child support would still be responsibility of the state. Repeal of no fault divorce should be accomplished in every state but that won’t happen.

A newspaper columnist responded to this issue of state involvement in marriages: “Since I printed the letter from ‘Deceived in Arizona’ (Nov. 30), I have learned that not only individuals, but also some churches feel so strongly about separating the legal aspect of marriage from the religious that they have voted …[that] their clergy no longer sign marriage licenses. Among them are member churches of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian-Universalists and the Quakers. Instead, the model they follow is the one used in Europe, in which couples go to a courthouse to register their marriage, and then to a church or synagogue for a religious ceremony.” Also, some independent Presbyterians and independent Baptists do likewise.

Perversion disrupts society and does not contribute to stability. If historic anti-sodomy laws were passed then same-sex “marriage” would be a moot issue. Homosexual activity would be illegal anytime anywhere. That would be a return to sanity. It would also give clout to local authorities to prohibit cruising, public sex, solicitation, etc. However, anti-sodomy laws will not pass because of anti-Bible, anti-God, anti-common sense attitudes. Frankly, many twisted young people think two homosexual men married with a license is preferable to a man and woman married without a license! Their warped thinking considers mischief in a couple without a license but nothing outrageous for a same-sex “couple” to climb into bed together!

Homosexuals admit they want the blessings of the state on their union; however, the state is not in the blessing business. They can get that from the Pope if they have the cash, clout, and contacts.

In the absence of anti-sodomy laws, if a church had no Bible convictions about sodomy then they could “marry” the “couple.” Let me remind my critics that that is what is happening right now under present laws. People are doing what they want to do and church leaders without convictions, smile upon all kinds of evil. No government agency would be approving any kind of marriage arrangements. If some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disliked the various weddings, they could say so. Such church leaders could show their disagreement, disapproval, and disdain by not accepting such unrepentant people into their membership.

Some pastors refuse to use a state-issued marriage license and use a marriage covenant instead. Such a thought horrifies some religious leaders and I wonder why. After all, the evidence is all on the side of the covenant makers not those who think state licensure is best and necessary. A covenantal relationship is much deeper than a merely contractual, state approved one.

Do we really believe that the state should regulate marriages? If so, why? They sure didn’t in the past. The onus is on my critics to provide reasons why the state should continue to license (regulate) marriages. It is one thing for the state to recognize the existence of a marriage and another thing for them to give permission for a marriage. No state has that right.

Moreover, without a marriage license from the state, the state would lose its professed authority to have control of any issue of that marriage. The marriage license is used by some states as an excuse to interfere in training of children. Some states even boldly declare that children belong to the state! Does any sane person out there believe that the state is a partner in their marriage? Many people are shocked to hear that and even refuse to believe it is a fact but Ohio law is very clear stating in an official brochure on marriage: “When you repeat your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.”

Most people do not know that state marriage statutes are directory not mandatory! West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia states: “Statutes on the subject of marriage, even though penal, are merely directory, and a marriage celebrated though not in accordance with the forms of the statute, is nevertheless valid.”

Maybe we should tell the states that they have overreached their authority. They have enough to do dealing with crime, law and order, welfare (which they should also leave to others), education (see previous parenthesis), repairing streets, etc., without getting involved in any religious activity.

How to handle divorce will be considered a major objection to my recommendation; however, could anything be worse than it is now? Church groups handled divorce in the past. Do you remember King Henry VIII who asked the Pope for a divorce so he could dump his wife to free him to marry a woman who might provide him a male heir? No fault divorce should be repealed forcing married people to justify a divorce usually for abuse, abandonment, or adultery. While marriage would be outside the bailiwick of the state, divorce would not be.

It’s time to insist on total separation of church (but not God) and state. Let’s start with the wedding business. In fact, it has already started with the pastors who refuse to use a marriage license and opt for a marriage covenant instead.

However, look for a fight because the state does not like losing any of its power to control people. Instead of looking to the state for approval, let’s disapprove of the state’s intrusion into marriage! Let’s take away state power to certify, approve, or license any marriage. While it will remove the messy problem of approving same-sex marriage, it will not end same-sex “families.”

Safe, secure, and stable homes produce a steady state but one that has no authority over who marries whom.

(Third of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage: Consent, Commitment, Consummation, and Communication!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Furthermore, He was a guest at the marriage in Cana thereby giving His approval on the proceedings.
The ancient Jews thought that there were three major events in life: birth, marriage, and death with marriage being the most important. They felt very strongly about marriage as revealed in the Talmud: “Any Jew who has not a wife is no man.” In fact, marriage was required by the Jews who believed an unmarried man a murderer! Wow, that’s strong!

In the early Roman Empire before the birth of Christ, marriage was a duty of all Roman aristocrats. In Sparta, a fine was imposed on bachelorhood, late marriage, and single life! According to the laws of Lycurgus, unmarried persons were prohibited from attending the public games and Plato declared all bachelors were unworthy of any honor. The Greeks obviously wanted families even while they tolerated and even glorified perversion!

The background of marriage is varied and interesting. As a substitution for God’s plan of marriage, men have made all kinds of living and sexual arrangements. They are polygamy (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), polyamory (multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships), promiscuity (jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit), and perversion (same-sex or sex with anything from a goat to a rocking chair). That covers most of them. Pedophilia is being touted as acceptable sexual behavior and soon it will even be “brave,” “courageous,” and “bold” to advocate such depravity.

Promiscuity has always been practiced, yet not as a normal, common, and acceptable practice except by a few small tribes. In those few instances, males and females lived “promiscuously” with whomever they desired. Members of the Oneida community in New York, for example, practiced “complex marriage,” in which all members of the community were married to all others, and sexual contact was regulated by the group.

Some would suggest that general promiscuity is very similar to the animal kingdom. I agree. It’s called, “pigpen morality.” Hollywood also comes to mind as an obvious example of barnyard living arrangements.

In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son primarily because the bride became part of the clan. Although the new couple became “one flesh,” they both remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary declares, “The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.”

“Love” was seldom an issue in those days. The girl had little or nothing to say about the matter although Rebekah was a biblical exception. They did not marry the one they loved, but learned to love the one they married. Love did not hold the family together. Commitment did, with the encouragement of local, family, and religious connections. Most young people today can’t even spell commitment and they got that from their parents.

The Old Testament is the most authoritative and ancient source so it is a good beginning for a study of marriage, family, and the home. Ancient Jews were to marry only other Jews and any deviation was considered a terrible sin against God. God seemed to be concerned that any marriage, other than between two Jews, would corrupt His people. (They were corrupt enough without the influence of pagans. Solomon is a good example of pagan corruption.) The Apostle Paul emphasized that Christians in Corinth should not marry unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). That command holds today for modern Christians.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reveals that the Old Testament has no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher, prophet, or priest being present at weddings since it was a family affair: “There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us–there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible.” In Gen. 2:24, Adam is seen cleaving unto his wife, the first time “wife” is used in the Bible. No ceremony, no preacher, no license, no church and no state involvement, so I am on solid ground in refusing any state involvement in marriage since marriage was established before any government.

At weddings, the couple would have a meal with family and friends, then the man took the woman into his home before witnesses and they were considered married. This was always with the permission of the father of the girl showing he approved of the groom. The couple became a family.

According to the Code of Hammurabi (about 1800 BC) in ancient Babylon (Iraq), marriage was a contract between a man and woman and marriages were arranged by relatives.

During the Roman Empire, there were wealthy citizens who wanted to list their property when they entered a marriage so there could be no misunderstanding by anyone as to the status of the man and his heirs. This was the beginning of officially recording marriages similar to what we do today. A Roman male could terminate a marriage any time, but a wife who wanted to end a marriage had to grin and bear it. Many unhappy wives in the Empire did little grinning but they did a lot of groaning.

This Roman custom was the first step on a very slippery slope of government control of marriages and a take-over of homes; and it is past time for Christian churches to take back control of the formation of their families.

There is no legislation or court decision necessary. Pastors should simply stop using a marriage license and use a written covenant instead. Everything else would remain the same. No notice or permission is necessary from any official. If a couple wants to record the ceremony at their county courthouse that is their prerogative and I think should be done. It would simply be informing the state after the fact.

Since government fouls up everything and has no scriptural support for regulating weddings, government should have nothing to do with modern marriages. Get the state out of all Christian marriages! Frankly, I can build a good case for churches to get out of the wedding business since there is not one command for preachers to perform weddings. However, a church can choose to have what ministries their members want whether it is Sunday school, youth services, camps, rallies, or weddings. There is no scriptural command for any of those ministries but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

(Second of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Stable Homes Produce a Stable State!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”