Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Orthodox Church Marriage: Does it require a Civil Marriage?

marriage matrimony divorce

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#21 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 07:07 PM

Please note: sharia law is not 'accepted' in the UK.

 

Please answer the question directly: Does or does not the UK have sharia courts?



#22 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 07:24 PM

The Uk government dose not recognize Sharia Law as binding in the Uk.  There many be Muslim community which clam to hold Sharia courts but these are not recognized as legally binding by the UK courts.

 

There has been campaigns for Sharia courts in the UK but these have not been accepted and written in to UK law.

 

Also on the original topic the Law around mirage in the UK is fully equal now, it is a contract entered into equally by two partlies.  Mirage is only recognized in the UK when it is done according to the Law, some religious leaders are trained as registrars so can do the legal bit within the service (as is the case with all Church of England ministers), otherwise it is needful to have the civic ceremony in advance of the Service.



#23 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 07:31 PM

Also on the original topic the Law around mirage in the UK is fully equal now, it is a contract entered into equally by two partlies.  Mirage is only recognized in the UK when it is done according to the Law, some religious leaders are trained as registrars so can do the legal bit within the service (as is the case with all Church of England ministers), otherwise it is needful to have the civic ceremony in advance of the Service.

Define "equal."

 

Specifically, when there are children from the marriage, is there preference who they stay with after a divorce?  And I don't mean technically... I mean does the system favor one sex over the other in custody?


Edited by Seraphim of the Midwest, 03 December 2014 - 07:43 PM.


#24 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 07:42 PM

The Uk government dose not recognize Sharia Law as binding in the Uk.  There many be Muslim community which clam to hold Sharia courts but these are not recognized as legally binding by the UK courts.

 

There has been campaigns for Sharia courts in the UK but these have not been accepted and written in to UK law.

With all due respect, sharia law doesn't have to be considered binding.  All it has to do is be present.  http://www.matribunal.com

 

In a Muslim community, sharia is implicitly binding on Muslim parties or they will suffer ostracism within their community, or worse.  Muslims cannot leave Islam without a death sentence pronounced by the community (whether it is carried out or not depends on the circumstances, of course).  It is really irrelevant if the Crown/Parliament officially accepts them or not.

 

If Orthodox Church marriages are indeed marriages int he eyes of God, then it is irrelevant if they have a civil component.  Matters of divorce would be dealt with in the Church.  The Orthodox Church does not accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Orthodox bishop, do they?  The Orthodox Church would not accept a homosexual "marriage" as an Orthodox Marriage, would they?  Then why the double-standard?



#25 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 09:03 PM

Since we here are not Muslims, I don't see that sharia law has any relevance to this thread. But to be clear, it has no legal standing in the UK. If Muslim communities choose to exercise it, that is up to them, but it is not legally binding. After all, the Jewish community in the UK has, for very many years, had the Beth Din which is a religious court but it has no legal standing. Similarly, there is a Greek Orthodox religious court in the UK but it has no legal standing. In all such cases, the parties may choose to treat the decisions of such bodies as binding but they also can choose to disregard them and turn to the state legal system.

 

The word 'equal' really has no relevance to civil marriage in England. It is a civil contract entered into like any other contract; it has legal consequences which the parties are taken to know. On civil divorce, the High Court has absolute discretion to do whatever it decides, including custody of children. In the majority of cases, custody is awarded to the mother with access rights for the father.

 

I have to say that I find the last paragraph of past #24 difficult to understand. Certainly, the archbishop of Canterbury is not relevant to the thread, and I do not see what civil marriages of homosexuals have to with the thread.


Edited by Reader Andreas, 03 December 2014 - 09:14 PM.


#26 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 09:25 PM

Since we here are not Muslims, I don't see that sharia law has any relevance to this thread. But to be clear, it has no legal standing in the UK. If Muslim communities choose to exercise it, that is up to them, but it is not legally binding. After all, the Jewish community in the UK has, for very many years, had the Beth Din which is a religious court but it has no legal standing. Similarly, there is a Greek Orthodox religious court in the UK but it has no legal standing. In all such cases, the parties may choose to treat the decisions of such bodies as binding but they also can choose to disregard them and turn to the state legal system.

There is no need to restate the obvious.  I never claimed the Crown or Parliament did consider Muslim Sharia Courts to be legally binding.
 

The word 'equal' really has no relevance to civil marriage in England. It is a civil contract entered into like any other contract; it has legal consequences which the parties are taken to know. On civil divorce, the High Court has absolute discretion to do whatever it decides, including custody of children

That is exactly right Andreas.  So no, marriage is not "equal" in England.  Women are given deference under the guise of equality because along with children comes financial resources that are usurped at gunpoint.  The same is true in the US.  I wish others would refrain from the hypocrisy and rhetoric.

 

So then, do Orthodox bishops actually require state approval of the sacrament of marriage (or do they really)?  You can have a state marriage that is not recognized by the Orthodox Church (Andreas, that is how homosexual marriage is relevant to this thread).  You can have Muslim polygamous marriage that is not recognized by the Church (Andreas, that is how Islam is relevant to this thread).

 

BTW, thanks for clarifying the despotism of your English court.  I just threw up a little in my mouth.



#27 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 December 2014 - 09:33 PM

Seraphim, you distort what has been said. To state that equality is an irrelevant concept does not imply inequality. The rest of post #26 I find lacking coherence.



#28 Effie Ganatsios

Effie Ganatsios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 December 2014 - 06:20 AM

Correct.
 
Religious marriages in Australia include the completion of the "paperwork" required to register the marriage with the state authority. There is no need for a separate civil marriage "ceremony". The registry papers are signed by the couple and their witnesses after the end of the religious ceremony.

WE signed the registry papers after the religious ceremony when we married. I don't know what the Greek law concerning marriage was in Greece before 1983 but I do know that many couples now have a civil ceremony and then a religious ceremony later on = mainly for economic reason. I believe.

Nice "speaking" to you again, Olga.

effie

#29 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 04 December 2014 - 04:39 PM

US law does not require that a civil marriage accompany a Church marriage as far as I am aware.

Actually, "US law" has little or nothing to do with marriage. Marriage laws are state laws. Perhaps in the state where you live it is permissible to have a Church marriage without a license - but that is not the case in many states. I note that you are in the "midwest" and honestly, I don't know what the prevailing legal attitude is in the midwest - but out here in the Pacific West, most states do require that you have a state license for a Church marriage. The couple is not breaking the law, but the clergyman is (and yes, while the Church is not bound by civil law in matters of faith and doctrine, we are subject to the laws of the state in which we live.)

Fr David Moser

#30 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 December 2014 - 05:27 PM

Actually, "US law" has little or nothing to do with marriage. Marriage laws are state laws. Perhaps in the state where you live it is permissible to have a Church marriage without a license - but that is not the case in many states. I note that you are in the "midwest" and honestly, I don't know what the prevailing legal attitude is in the midwest - but out here in the Pacific West, most states do require that you have a state license for a Church marriage. The couple is not breaking the law, but the clergyman is (and yes, while the Church is not bound by civil law in matters of faith and doctrine, we are subject to the laws of the state in which we live.)

Fr David Moser

Father, that is true, in the US the state laws do govern marriage.  I meant that with the Defense of Marriage Act (or lack thereof) and Federal Courts overturning state referendums on not allowing homosexual "marriages" it is becoming quite blurred, just as Roe v. Wade blurred the issue of abortion.  I used the term "US law" to be broad enough to encompass the international scope of the forum.

 

Even focusing on State laws in the US, these laws put males increasingly at great risk.

 

I don't think any of the faithful would want to put clergy at risk, nor would they directly disobey a bishop.  Unfortunately, that leaves males in the US with these choices:

  1. Remain celibate (either in or outside of an Orthodox marriage)
  2. Marry a faithful woman of character who will not destroy the man (not likely, but it does happen either by "luck" or good upbringing)
  3. Place themselves in a marriage which is subjugation to a woman, i.e. slavery (NOT truly an Orthodox marriage)
  4. Marry but sterilize themselves or use birth control

Practically speaking, I can instruct my sons to either expect to be slaves or be monks.  Or leave the US for a country that permits them to escape this slavery.  That is about it.  

 

Even if they luck out and get a "good" wife, they can expect to live under the oppression that with one statement, their entire life will be destroyed: "I want a divorce."  Just like clergy in the US live under the oppression of a woman not liking what they say.  That is pretty bleak.  And from what I understand, sterilization/birth control are not acceptable?

 

Why then would any man in the US (or the UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and I am sure many other countries) get married?  Whatever the answer may be, it is what it is... I just prefer it be out in the open :)



#31 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 December 2014 - 06:19 PM

Seriphem

 

I think you have the theology of Marage which is something only reverent within the Church confused with the Leagal contract of Marage.

 

Historicly the Western Church (I am referring here to the post schisam catholic Church and the aspects which seperated form her) into a control thing, this being adopted from the cultural setting in which the Church found itself.  To a grater extent the North Eroupen tribes in particular viewed women as objects and property, but not all there were Matriarchal (Women lead tribes) as well.

 

Most countries now have a Leagal equality in the Marage, where all property is held equally by both parties, in the case of death the surviving Spouse gets everything, unless a will has been written dictating the distribution of the inheritance.  There is a complicated set of Rules in the UK at least as to how inheritance works if both Spouses die in quick succession, the second to die's next of kin inherent, first direct decedents, then siblings then the siblings children.  In the case of divorce normally the property is shared equally, and whoever dose not have primary custody of the children is expected to pay the other maintenance for the children, whichever way round it is.

 

What the thelolgy of a Church (or any other religion is) dose not matter to the state as long as it dose not contriveen the Law, and we are meant to abide within the Law as long as it dose not directly vilalte the faith, as St Paul reminds us.

 

I also feel you have at moments a Low view of what women can do, in most mirages I have seen failed it has been the Man who has inicated the problem.  In a good mirage both pull together, when this dose not happen they fail whoever is at fault.



#32 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 December 2014 - 06:46 PM

Most countries now have a Leagal equality in the Marage, where all property is held equally by both parties, in the case of death the surviving Spouse gets everything, unless a will has been written dictating the distribution of the inheritance.  There is a complicated set of Rules in the UK at least as to how inheritance works if both Spouses die in quick succession, the second to die's next of kin inherent, first direct decedents, then siblings then the siblings children.  In the case of divorce normally the property is shared equally, and whoever dose not have primary custody of the children is expected to pay the other maintenance for the children, whichever way round it is.

It is not equal.  The resources go with the children.  The women almost always get "awarded" the children, who are treated as possessions.  Then the man pays to maintain both the children and the ex-wife, who is then free to get pregnant and do the same thing to the next male who is sucker enough to fall into the snare.

 

It is "equal" in name only.  "Child support" is nothing more than money that is extorted from a man and given to a woman with no accountability for its use.  The woman is frequently supported by public welfare, so the reality is that the woman gains security and the man is decimated.

 

 

I also feel you have at moments a Low view of what women can do, in most mirages I have seen failed it has been the Man who has inicated the problem.  In a good mirage both pull together, when this dose not happen they fail whoever is at fault.

 

When women control sex, which is one of the only reasons a man usually marries, then if she gets pregnant, she has enslaved the man.  Why would he bother otherwise?  It is not in his best interest on any level, and when the sex life disappears, he becomes very aware of the bad decision he made.  Men don't initiate divorce as a general rule because it make a bad problem exponentially worse.  Women, on the other hand, initiate divorce most of the time because it is lucrative.  The problem is asymmetric for the sexes (and I mean in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, and South Africa... I am interested in people from other cultures describing how they avoid such a SNAFU).

 

I already started a separate thread about how frequently sex can be expected within an Orthodox marriage.  The answer was effectively, "it needs to be worked out between the husband and wife."  That effectively equates to saying "the wife controls it."  Then I asked on this thread if the sacrament of marriage within the Church has to be according to the civil law, which gives the female control over ending the marriage because the law is "no fault."  It appears that the answer is "yes, it must be according to civil law" which effectively means the wife is in control of the husband.  In the case where there are children from the marriage, that is most of the man's life (until the last child is age 26 in the US, so for a man who has a child at age 30, he is enslaved until he is 56 years old).

 

So, I am getting the sense that the sacrament of marriage has been turned into a man selling himself into slavery for sex.  How is this not a perversion of marriage?  I am fairly certain that it is not patristic.  It may sound like a good deal to the females out there because for women it is a favorable and lucrative deal.  Unfortunately, I see more and more men deciding not to play the game because it is not worth the risk.



#33 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 December 2014 - 08:19 PM

It is not equal.  The resources go with the children.  The women almost always get "awarded" the children, who are treated as possessions.  Then the man pays to maintain both the children and the ex-wife, who is then free to get pregnant and do the same thing to the next male who is sucker enough to fall into the snare.

 

A man is responsible for providing for of his wife and children, this does not cease should the couple separate, he still has a responsibility to provide for his children. Now I realize that it is different in the U.S.A. but over here child maintenance allowance is, to be frank, a bit of a joke, the amount of money a father has to provide for the children is relatively small and the there are many ways in which to avoid paying anything at all, the real trouble is in fact access for the father to see his children. If there is a major problem there in the U.S.A. on the other end of the scale and with civil marriage in general I hope that it is resolved, but I cannot see the abandonment of civil marriage on these grounds and being the answer.

 

"Child support" is nothing more than money that is extorted from a man and given to a woman with no accountability for its use.

 

On the contrary it is money to provide for his children. If she spends it unwisely he has still done his duty, so long as it is not affecting the children let her worry about her failings.
 

 

When women control sex, which is one of the only reasons a man usually marries, then if she gets pregnant, she has enslaved the man.  Why would he bother otherwise?  It is not in his best interest on any level, and when the sex life disappears, he becomes very aware of the bad decision he made.

 

I fail to see why you think that sex is one of the only reasons a man marries, it maybe your experience but I doubt it is most peoples. I also don't think that the product of the union between a man and woman, a child, should be seen in terms of enslavement.

 

Men don't initiate divorce as a general rule because it make a bad problem exponentially worse.  Women, on the other hand, initiate divorce most of the time because it is lucrative.

 

Have you ever thought that mayhap this is because it is the man who is often the one coursing the problems (e.g. adultery, aggression, violence) and the woman sees divorce as the only option left? We must be carefull in saying because women initiate most of the divorces they are therefore responsible for the marriage breakdown which is the key issue.

 

So, I am getting the sense that the sacrament of marriage has been turned into a man selling himself into slavery for sex.  How is this not a perversion of marriage?  I am fairly certain that it is not patristic.  It may sound like a good deal to the females out there because for women it is a favorable and lucrative deal.  Unfortunately, I see more and more men deciding not to play the game because it is not worth the risk.

 

I doubt most men see it as selling themselves into slavery for sex, but I would suggest that those who marry mainly for sex deserve such "slavery". 

 

It would be useful, I think, at this point to remind ourselves that marriage was originally civil and recognized by the Church, the marriage service of the Church comes a lot latter and is primarily supplicatory in nature. That does not mean that marriage cannot be seen as a mystery (sacrament) but it should not be viewed on par Mysteries such as Baptism, as it has done elsewhere in this thread.

 

I would also suggest that your views (Seraphim of the Midwest) of woman are deeply negative to the point of coming across as misogynisic. Further I would suggest the views you are expressing here like those in your other threads regarding the frequency of sexual intercourse are not as in line with patristic thought as you may think they are, and are having the tendency to go beyond the scope of this forum. 

 

Given we are in the Nativity Fast and are all trying to give our time and concentration thereto, these topics and the less than upright tone people are using when discussing them in these threads are not spiritually edifying for the building of each other up, but are in fact inducing only anger and lack of civil dialogue, providing only meaningless distraction from our spiritual task. I have posted this as I felt I had to give some reply to the comments being made here and to point out these observations. 


Edited by Olga, 05 December 2014 - 03:41 AM.
reformatted post quotes from quotation marks to quote boxes for ease of reading


#34 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 December 2014 - 03:46 AM

Seraphim, yet again you are disrupting a thread by turning it into a soapbox for your own opinions, this time on your view of male-female relations. Allow me to remind you of the subject matter of the thread: Does an Orthodox Church Marriage have to be accompanied by a civil ("legal") marriage?

 

Please stick to the topic, and put away your belligerence. Any further derailing into inflammatory language or sociological opinion will be dealt with swiftly.



#35 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 January 2015 - 03:04 PM

Seraphim, yet again you are disrupting a thread by turning it into a soapbox for your own opinions, this time on your view of male-female relations. Allow me to remind you of the subject matter of the thread: Does an Orthodox Church Marriage have to be accompanied by a civil ("legal") marriage?

 

If opinions about male-female relations are not relevant to a discussion of civil "legal" marriage, then they are *never* relevant.



#36 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 January 2015 - 03:10 PM

A man is responsible for providing for of his wife and children, this does not cease should the couple separate, he still has a responsibility to provide for his children...I would also suggest that your views (Seraphim of the Midwest) of woman are deeply negative to the point of coming across as misogynisic. Further I would suggest the views you are expressing here like those in your other threads regarding the frequency of sexual intercourse are not as in line with patristic thought as you may think they are, and are having the tendency to go beyond the scope of this forum. 

 

Given we are in the Nativity Fast and are all trying to give our time and concentration thereto, these topics and the less than upright tone people are using when discussing them in these threads are not spiritually edifying for the building of each other up, but are in fact inducing only anger and lack of civil dialogue, providing only meaningless distraction from our spiritual task. I have posted this as I felt I had to give some reply to the comments being made here and to point out these observations. 

 

 

Who says a man is responsible for providing for his wife and children?  That is misandristic.

 

Ad hominem is always an easy out.  And it is self-evident that pointing to an argument and calling it mysogyny is an easy way to avoid talking about it, especially in WASP societies.  Frankly, it is irrelevant if an argument sounds mysogynistic.  It must be death with.

 

We are no longer in the Nativity Fast.  So, can the discussion now happen?  Of course, Lent is right around the corner... 



#37 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 January 2015 - 08:15 PM

Who says a man is responsible for providing for his wife and children? 

 

In England, the common law duty of a man to maintain his wife was abolished by statute. As one would expect, there remains a duty on a father to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of children until they attain their majority. However, I find it hard to see what such matters have to do with the discussion of Orthodoxy from its patristic, liturgical, and monastic deposit. It follows that arguments should have a basis in that deposit.



#38 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 January 2015 - 05:31 PM

Christian marriage has  a dimension that goes beyond political and moral traditions and laws.

 

The eschatological dimension gives another meaning to the word marriage.



#39 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 January 2015 - 07:41 PM

In England, the common law duty of a man to maintain his wife was abolished by statute. As one would expect, there remains a duty on a father to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of children until they attain their majority. However, I find it hard to see what such matters have to do with the discussion of Orthodoxy from its patristic, liturgical, and monastic deposit. It follows that arguments should have a basis in that deposit.

 

Failure to see how such matters have to do with a discussion of Orthodoxy from its patristic, liturgical, and monastic deposit does not make the discussion lacking.  I fail to see how English law plays into the discussion, except that it is *intimately related* to the question "Orthodox Church Marriage: Does it require a Civil Marriage?"

 

So, your comment naturally evokes a question on my part: English law used to require a man to provide financial support to maintain his wife.  And what did he receive in return?

 

My point is fairly straightforward: If the Orthodox Church indeed requires a civil marriage in order to have a valid sacrament of marriage, then the state can disintegrate the sacramental union without the consent of the Church.  Therefore, the Church sacraments are ultimately controlled by the State.  Is this State control over the Sacraments according to the Tradition or not?

 

BTW, similar issues would affect the other sacraments.  In Soviet Russia, the appointment of Bishops and Priests was controlled but the State (Sergianism).  In many countries, the rites of burial are interfered with by the State, like when cremation is required (or performed without consent of the family).  There is also the regulation of wine, including additives and even complete prohibition, which would affect communion (and in the US, during prohibition, there were apparently exceptions for sacramental wine from what I have heard).

 

I don't appreciate it when I make points and they are constantly called into question as being relevant.  It is becoming more clear that Monachos is not a forum that is conducive to discussing ideas in any way other than with the flow under the toll bridge.  That is sad.


Edited by Seraphim of the Midwest, 27 January 2015 - 07:41 PM.


#40 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 28 January 2015 - 12:24 PM

My point is fairly straightforward: If the Orthodox Church indeed requires a civil marriage in order to have a valid sacrament of marriage, then the state can disintegrate the sacramental union without the consent of the Church.


The sacramental union survives termination of the civil marriage and endures until dissolution by  ecclesiastical divorce.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: marriage, matrimony, divorce

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users