Must Marriage Comply with Civil Law?

By Dan Gatlin

Some may be surprised to see an article on this topic. Before a few years ago, such a question would have been viewed as silly. But today there are preachers who are advocating fornication under two circumstances. Perhaps a little background information is necessary before considering this question.

Some among us are teaching that if a man or woman is legally divorced without scriptural cause (fornication), then the divorced party can simply wait their former spouse to commit fornication or wait until they remarry. There is no doubt that under such a circumstance the second marriage of the divorcing spouse would be adulterous, since the cause for the divorce in the first marriage was not fornication. When this takes place, though it may be many years later, the divorced party may then in their own minds divorce their previous mate. Many accurately refer to this as “mental divorce.” The proponents of this view believe that there are two divorces, the civil procedure and the divorce that takes place in their mind before God. Of course, the Bible does not make a distinction between these; the New Testament simply speaks of divorce. After the divorced party “mentally puts away” their former spouse, they are then free to remarry.

Those that hold this view believe that the civil procedure is irrelevant. All that matters is that the “second divorce” (the one that takes place in the mind and before God) is for adultery. But where does the Bible teach that compliance with civil law is unnecessary in divorce? In truth, such a distinction between civil divorce and scriptural divorce comes from the mind of man, not from the pages of God’s word. So, the first circumstance where some preachers are advocating fornication (adultery) is in allowing for a remarriage when the cause of divorce is not adultery. They claim it is for adultery, but the truth is that it is not. Much has been written on this by both sides, and the truth is available for those who seek it (mentaldivorce.com).

Consider the logical conclusion to this argument. If God does not take into account the civil procedure in a divorce, is such a procedure necessary in establishing a marriage? If it is, then some explanation and scripture are needed to prove such. If not, then marriage would be established simply by a man and woman agreeing before God to live together as husband and wife. This is a question that most advocating the “mental divorce” position don’t want to discuss. It shows the weakness of the position.

If God does not take into account civil law in the establishment of marriage, then may two 12 year olds marry? What if a 16 year old girl came home from a date and said, “My boyfriend (husband?) and I decided to get married, and we consummated our union on ‘lovers’ lane.’” Should we recognize their “marriage,” or would they be guilty of fornication? If the girl were sincere in her “vow before God” and the young man were not, would they be married? This is the second circumstance where some allow (by implication) fornication. This is the logical consequence to the “mental divorce,” “civil-law-does-not-matter” doctrine.

In truth, the New Testament is clear on the subject. For marriage to be recognized by God it must comply with His word (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9) and with civil law. “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Rom. 13:1-2). “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God” (1 Pet. 2:11-16). Marriage must comply with civil law, and so must divorce. The only exception that God allows in violating civil law, is when a law requires us to violate God’s will (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29). &

Civil Rights and Homosexual “Equality”

By Joe R. Price

The homosexual agenda of acceptance and inclusion frames its perceived lack of equality in marriage as a struggle for civil rights. We are being asked to view the push to legalize same-sex marriage as parallel to the struggle for racial equality.

The attempt to insert civil rights into this debate is a non sequitur (it does not logically follow). Issues of race equality are not equivalent to sexual orientation and practice. Race is not chosen, it is the result of ancestry. On the other hand, homosexual conduct is not inherited, nor is it natural (Rom. 1:27). It is chosen conduct.

The Bible supports this distinction, and Bible believers draw their faith from it (not from the shifting sand of human conceit and self-determinism). Concerning race, God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve are the parents of us all (Gen. 1:26-27; 3:20). Respecting race, all people ought to be treated equally; such is a moral (and hence, a civil) right.

God also created gender and sexuality (Gen. 1:27-28). (Man did not create marriage.) God created marriage for male and female, both to propagate the race and to answer the problem of loneliness by providing marital companionship that is morally pure and fulfilling (Gen. 2:18-25; 1 Cor. 7:2-5; Heb. 13:4). Marriage, from “the beginning of the creation”, has been between male and female (Mk. 10:6-8). Attempts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples do not promote marriage “equality”; just the opposite. It endorses a corrupted imbalance, a grotesque and unnatural form of marriage.

How one expresses himself sexually is not a matter of civil rights and “equality”, but of either moral purity or defilement (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Ths. 4:3-5). God has revealed His will on marriage, and pleas for “equality” do not change this seminal fact: God judges as sinful the immoral practice of same-sex marriage (Heb. 13:4). Same-sex marriage fundamentally and morally corrupts marriage as God designed it. Christians must oppose it. &

.Cultural Acceptance vs. Bible Acceptance

By Bob Myhan

Homosexuality continues to make great strides as to its cultural acceptance. Even the president of the United States has recently done a 180 by endorsing same-sex marriage.

One of the reasons for the shifting winds of cultural acceptability is the way homosexuality is defined. For example, as late as 1987 World Book defined it as "sexual activity between persons of the same sex.” In the year 2000, however, this same reference work defined it as “sexual attraction chiefly to individuals of the same sex.”

Do you see the difference? In 1987 it was “sexual activity” but now it is “sexual attraction.” When someone says, “A person cannot help being homosexual,” he means that one cannot help being sexually attracted to persons of his/her own gender. While that may be true, one can and must exercise self control where sexual activity is concerned. Homosexual activity is clearly condemned in both Old and New Testaments. (Gen. 19; 1 Cor. 6:9-10) In fact, the Bible condemns all sexual activity outside of a scriptural marriage.

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb. 13:4)

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9)

Thus, even heterosexuals are to control their sexual appetites. We do have control over whether we engage in sexual activity with those to whom we are sexually attracted. &