Correct. Private contacts carry no weight in family court. Pre-nups etc… including surrogacy contacts are superseded by a legal doctrine called: the best interest of the child.
Correct. Only a few States today practice common law marriage. You could go to court and claim the co-habitation was a marriage and ask for a legal divorce. In States that didn’t recognize common law marriage, the only difference between co-habitation and marriages are property rights. Co-habitation, the father is presumed to have no rights to the child unless they fight for them in court. The mother is presumed to be the fit parent. Any property shared in co-habituation is not considered “community property” unless they have their names on it. Like a house. Whose even name is on the deed is considered the sole owner. So, co-habituation, the man has to fight for custody of the child. In a marriage, the father is presumed to have shared custody unless decided by a judge to give sole custody to the mother because the father was considered unfit, or it was not in the best interest of the child. So, if you have a covenantal marriage, but not a legal marriage you have more property rights, but have to fight for shared or split custody of your biological-child. So, as far as your children are concerned, it is better to be legally married. But as far as your house, money, and property it is better not to be legally married and just co-habitate.
Correct. Family Court is not a court of law. That means, legal principles of the law are not binding on the judge. It is a court of equity. That means, discretion is the primary function of the court. What does the judge think is best for the child, regardless of State or Federal law. That is why they do not honor the United States Constitution. This came from England. Eventually the Courts of Equity were disbanded in England (1857-1900’s). Courts of Equity were a way of applying scriptural principles into law (maxims of equity). Both cannon law and civil law.
26:20 "we already lost the battle" Exactly !! The Western church has lost the cultural battle. Light of the world and salt of the earth ? Have we removed evil from among us collectively as Old Israel had to ? Western faith today often looks more like individualistic piety than anything else. We keep saying salvation is a personal thing and that's it. Well , it's not just a personal thing. It's like marriage . The horrible modern teachings on marriage that say well , after all , you don't need marriage , you just need Jesus . Or , you don't need marriage , you just need "self control" (it is a subtle twist of what Paul said) . Or , it's up to each Christian to get married or not blah blah. Well , marriage is an individual thing since from an individual perspective , most people have urges that need to be met 1 Co 7:4. But marriage is ALSO a collective thing , since from a collective perspective , the church needs to grown and multiply physically (and not just spiritually). Psalms 127/128 Having a lot of children contributed to the growth of the community , of the PEOPLE of Israel. We have lost this "people" vision.
I agree the evangelical church has completely lost the "be fruitful and multiply" command. Luckily there is a growing reformed church that sees it as a big priority.
I acknowledge all of the problems that have been caused by modern family courts, and all of the other things that are wrong. However, fornication is still a sin, and I would strongly beg to differ with the idea that we should violate God's law to protect ourselves. God is very clear in the Bible. Marriage is good; fornication and adultery will be judged, and should not be accepted by anyone, especially by those who profess Christ.
Yes I agree, and are you saying that you would need to sign the marriage license for it to not be fornication, or could you be married in the church only?
@@PostMillMan Yes, you would need to sign the marriage license unless and until marriage customs in our culture change. Honestly, I probably prefer when marriage was a community affair with the leader of the community or a preacher doing the ceremony, without involving the government. However, that is not the custom today, and until it changes, we need to accept that. The solution, I believe, is not to buck against marriage, nor is it to play semantic games, but it is for men to be very careful of who they marry, and retake authority over their wives, their homes and their children. Retaking the culture is going to take a while. This is especially true in places like Ukraine or my own country of Chile, in which religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized as valid. At least America still allows and recognizes them, unless I'm mistaken.
@@yerkodifonis3019 I agree men need to be very careful, but the way the laws are set up she ultimately has all the power. The laws are literally anti Patriarchy and therefore anti biblical which some pastors now even say they won't sign the license for that very reason.
The current marriage strike only makes massive debauchery worse : "Nevertheless , to avoid sexual immorality , let every man have his wife and every woman her husband " 1 Corinthians 7:4 However , what Paul said ONLY makes sense if sex is MANDATORY within the marriage bond , and it IS according to 1 Corinthians 7:5 since sex cannot be withheld without the consent of the other spouse . In other words, the wife cannot wihthold sex when her husband does not agree and the husband cannot reject her when she wants sexaul relation.
I agree, you are right on target for especially delaying marriage makes this worse, when the average age for marriage in the usa is 30, that doesn't do very well for purity.
Is there a marriage strike? All the young childless women I know have many men chasing them. It is only the single moms that have any kind of trouble getting married…
The Bible does not allow women to initiate a divorce. Only the men were allowed to initiate a divorce in the Old Testament, and Jesus did not change that. The only thing Jesus changed is having men initiate the divorce. 80% of women intiate divorce today, and its 90% if there are young children envolved. That means, single moms are most likely not marriage material, and if you marry a single mom, you will likely commit adultery by Matthew 5:32. The only reason you should marry a divorced woman if she was not the one who filled the paperwork as the plantive and she was guilty of sexual immorality. Ending the marriage covenant. But even then, you should probably not marry a woman who was put away for sexual immorality, for she will likely commit adultery in your marriage as well.
Correct. Private contacts carry no weight in family court. Pre-nups etc… including surrogacy contacts are superseded by a legal doctrine called: the best interest of the child.
I think doctrine in scripture also means practical application.
Correct. Only a few States today practice common law marriage. You could go to court and claim the co-habitation was a marriage and ask for a legal divorce. In States that didn’t recognize common law marriage, the only difference between co-habitation and marriages are property rights. Co-habitation, the father is presumed to have no rights to the child unless they fight for them in court. The mother is presumed to be the fit parent. Any property shared in co-habituation is not considered “community property” unless they have their names on it. Like a house. Whose even name is on the deed is considered the sole owner. So, co-habituation, the man has to fight for custody of the child. In a marriage, the father is presumed to have shared custody unless decided by a judge to give sole custody to the mother because the father was considered unfit, or it was not in the best interest of the child. So, if you have a covenantal marriage, but not a legal marriage you have more property rights, but have to fight for shared or split custody of your biological-child. So, as far as your children are concerned, it is better to be legally married. But as far as your house, money, and property it is better not to be legally married and just co-habitate.
oh ok, that is really interesting
1st listener, again. Do I get a door prize?
Correct. Family Court is not a court of law. That means, legal principles of the law are not binding on the judge. It is a court of equity. That means, discretion is the primary function of the court. What does the judge think is best for the child, regardless of State or Federal law. That is why they do not honor the United States Constitution. This came from England. Eventually the Courts of Equity were disbanded in England (1857-1900’s). Courts of Equity were a way of applying scriptural principles into law (maxims of equity). Both cannon law and civil law.
Is there a link to his book?
I don't get his website to work.
26:20 "we already lost the battle"
Exactly !! The Western church has lost the cultural battle. Light of the world and salt of the earth ?
Have we removed evil from among us collectively as Old Israel had to ?
Western faith today often looks more like individualistic piety than anything else. We keep saying salvation is a personal thing and that's it.
Well , it's not just a personal thing.
It's like marriage . The horrible modern teachings on marriage that say well , after all , you don't need marriage , you just need Jesus . Or , you don't need marriage , you just need "self control" (it is a subtle twist of what Paul said) . Or , it's up to each Christian to get married or not blah blah.
Well , marriage is an individual thing since from an individual perspective , most people have urges that need to be met 1 Co 7:4.
But marriage is ALSO a collective thing , since from a collective perspective , the church needs to grown and multiply physically (and not just spiritually).
Psalms 127/128 Having a lot of children contributed to the growth of the community , of the PEOPLE of Israel.
We have lost this "people" vision.
I agree the evangelical church has completely lost the "be fruitful and multiply" command. Luckily there is a growing reformed church that sees it as a big priority.
I acknowledge all of the problems that have been caused by modern family courts, and all of the other things that are wrong. However, fornication is still a sin, and I would strongly beg to differ with the idea that we should violate God's law to protect ourselves. God is very clear in the Bible. Marriage is good; fornication and adultery will be judged, and should not be accepted by anyone, especially by those who profess Christ.
Yes I agree, and are you saying that you would need to sign the marriage license for it to not be fornication, or could you be married in the church only?
@@PostMillMan Yes, you would need to sign the marriage license unless and until marriage customs in our culture change. Honestly, I probably prefer when marriage was a community affair with the leader of the community or a preacher doing the ceremony, without involving the government. However, that is not the custom today, and until it changes, we need to accept that. The solution, I believe, is not to buck against marriage, nor is it to play semantic games, but it is for men to be very careful of who they marry, and retake authority over their wives, their homes and their children. Retaking the culture is going to take a while. This is especially true in places like Ukraine or my own country of Chile, in which religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized as valid. At least America still allows and recognizes them, unless I'm mistaken.
@@PostMillMan
But is there such a thing as a "marriage license" in the Bible ?
@@framboise595 not that I know of
@@yerkodifonis3019 I agree men need to be very careful, but the way the laws are set up she ultimately has all the power. The laws are literally anti Patriarchy and therefore anti biblical which some pastors now even say they won't sign the license for that very reason.
The current marriage strike only makes massive debauchery worse :
"Nevertheless , to avoid sexual immorality , let every man have his wife and every woman her husband " 1 Corinthians 7:4
However , what Paul said ONLY makes sense if sex is MANDATORY within the marriage bond , and it IS according to 1 Corinthians 7:5 since sex cannot be withheld without the consent of the other spouse . In other words, the wife cannot wihthold sex when her husband does not agree and the husband cannot reject her when she wants sexaul relation.
I agree, you are right on target for especially delaying marriage makes this worse, when the average age for marriage in the usa is 30, that doesn't do very well for purity.
Is there a marriage strike? All the young childless women I know have many men chasing them. It is only the single moms that have any kind of trouble getting married…
I don't know for sure, but let's keep saying it so the young ladies get married earlier 😁 Manifest!
The Bible does not allow women to initiate a divorce. Only the men were allowed to initiate a divorce in the Old Testament, and Jesus did not change that. The only thing Jesus changed is having men initiate the divorce. 80% of women intiate divorce today, and its 90% if there are young children envolved. That means, single moms are most likely not marriage material, and if you marry a single mom, you will likely commit adultery by Matthew 5:32. The only reason you should marry a divorced woman if she was not the one who filled the paperwork as the plantive and she was guilty of sexual immorality. Ending the marriage covenant. But even then, you should probably not marry a woman who was put away for sexual immorality, for she will likely commit adultery in your marriage as well.