Marriage is ____ .

and god ordained

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.



the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

The Bible does not give specific details or directions about a marriage ceremony, yet it does mention weddings in several places. Jesus attended a wedding in John 2. Wedding ceremonies were a well-established tradition in Jewish history and in Bible times. Scripture is clear about marriage being a holy and divinely established covenant. It is equally clear about our obligation to honor and obey the laws of our earthly governments, which are also divinely established authorities. But, before we go any further, let's stop and examine the issue.
3 Positions
There are three commonly held beliefs about what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of God: 1.The couple is married in the eyes of God when the physical union is consummated through sexual intercourse.
2.The couple is married in the eyes of God when the couple is legally married.
3.The couple is married in the eyes of God after they have participated in a formal religious wedding ceremony.
Let's break this down and see what the Bible says about the marriage covenant.
In Malachi 2:14 we see that marriage is a holy covenant before God. In the Jewish custom, God's people signed a written agreement at the time of the marriage to seal the covenant. The marriage ceremony, therefore, is meant to be a public demonstration of a couple's commitment to a covenant relationship. It's not the "ceremony" that's important in a marriage, it's the couple's covenant commitment before God and men.

It's interesting to carefully consider the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and the "Ketubah" or marriage contract, which is read in the original Aramaic language. The husband accepts certain marital responsibilities, such as the provision of food, shelter and clothing for his wife, and promises to care for her emotional needs as well. This contract is so important that the marriage ceremony is not complete until it is signed by the groom and presented to the bride. This demonstrates that both husband and wife see marriage as more than just a physical and emotional union, but also as a moral and legal commitment. The Ketubah is also signed by two witnesses, and considered a legally binding agreement. It is forbidden for Jewish couples to live together without this document. For Jews, the marriage covenant symbolically represents the covenant between God and his people, Israel.

For Christians, marriage goes beyond the earthly covenant also, as a divine picture of the relationship between Christ and his Bride, the Church. It is a spiritual representation of our relationship with God. To learn more about the biblical purpose of marriage, you may read What Does the Bible Say About Marriage?

When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, he revealed something very important, something we often miss in this passage. In verses 17-18, Jesus said to the woman, "You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." The woman had been hiding the fact that the man she was living with was not her husband. According to the New Bible Commentary notes on this passage of Scripture, Common Law Marriage had no religious support in the Jewish faith. Living with a person in sexual union did not constitute a "husband and wife" relationship. Jesus made that plain here.

Therefore, position number 1 (the couple is married in the eyes of God when the physical union is consummated through sexual intercourse) does not have a foundation in Scripture.

no i wanted first def only thats what it means lol. that what it been for thousand os years. marriage has always been between man and women from the start sir.
civil unions are form yes.

Definitions

Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land


Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[4] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[5] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[6]

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[7] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[8]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[10]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.[4]

Etymology

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]

look at the first people who came her and the mayflower pact and tell me again don't you even know your own histroy lol. that was the startb of this nation

UPON THEIR ARRIVAL AND SETTING FORTH IN THE NEW WORLD THE
"FOREFATHERS" SIGNED A DOCUMENT. THIS WAS THE COVENANT KNOWN
AS THE 'MAYFLOWER COMPACT'. THEY WERE BINDING THEMSELVES
TOGETHER AND BEFORE GOD AS 'ONE BODY POLITICK'. THIS BECAME
A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE FOR ESTABLISHING THE AMERICAN NATION.
America has seen two streams of Biblical Christians come to her shores. These were the Pilgrims and the Puritans. The Pilgrims for the most part were separatists and inclined to live out their Christianity privately and with a primary focus on the Gospel and missions. As we have seen, the Puritans were the more politically active Christians. Back in the 1500's and 1600's they were the reformers of the established English Church.
The Puritans came to the English Colonies in America by the tens of thousands during those early decades of the 1600's. They had big dreams for a new Christian settlement in the New World. In the 1630's to 1650's they had tried to establish a new Parliamentary system in England established on the sure foundation of Biblical Christianity. But in this endeavor they had been sorely disappointed. King Charles 1 had not been willing to do any sovereignty sharing with Parliament whatsoever. They tangled with the king in Parliament in the political arena. When the king dissolved Parliament for the second time the dispute led on to civil war and the battlefield. The Puritans won the English Civil War and proceeded to impeach the king on a charge of high treason against the English people. But the subsequent experiment in Parliamentary democracy with the government being made up of a lone legislative body turned out to be a disaster. It failed due to lack of oversight. There was no viable counter-check on the inevitable internal corruption that arises when governments are not subject to others. The lack of visible leadership before the people was also leading to social unrest. It was in this governmental malaise that Oliver Cromwell had then come to the fore.

The behavior of Oliver Cromwell, (who was in command of the Puritan Army), was precisely the same as the king some years earlier. He dissolved Parliament. England then went under the rule of a Puritan dictatorship. This was somewhat benign in England. In Ireland it was very severe. This was a Puritan Christian republic, the first time Biblical Christians had seized power. This government under Oliver Cromwell as "Lord Protector" did allow the Puritan agenda to go forward. And Cromwell did succeed in uniting England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland together as the United Kingdom. This was the basis for Great Britain to go on and become the great maritime superpower. But the Puritan dictatorship was not sustainable. With the death of Cromwell 5 years later Charles II came to the throne and the monarchy was reinstated.

After Cromwell things had slipped back into the same old pattern of aristocratic and church elitism with its inevitable corruption and heavy handedness. The Puritan dreams, however, did not end there. Efforts for a righteous Christian republic ruled by a representative government of Godly statesmen had not been realized. Was this an impossible dream?

HOPES GO ON FOR A GODLY 'NATION UNDER GOD'
IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES OVER IN THE NEW WORLD.
Even as the Puritan dreams for England were fading their dreams for a new life in the English colonies was on the rise. A group of Puritans had settled Jamestown in 1611. Then in 1620 the separatist Puritan congregation from Scrooby, via Leiden, Holland, set sail for the New World aboard the Mayflower. They came to be called the Pilgrims. But early historians had also called them "Forefathers".
There is no doubt that during their passage to new lands in America they were truly Pilgrims and strangers on a journey into an unknown land. But as they established themselves together and before God in the New World they were transformed by their new situation and the necessity for new political bonds. Once again they became politically active as nation builders. As they began to organize themselves and covenant together their true Puritan identity returned to the fore.

Like many who would come after them they pursued their quest to fashion a 'nation under God', even a 'city on a hill' based on a Biblical Christian faith. By God's grace they had crossed the Atlantic Ocean and arrived safely to drop anchor at Plymouth Rock. From there they would set foot into the New World.

Before them lay an entirely new continent. It offered them all a new and fresh opportunity. Surely here in the American colonies they could begin to establish the model Christian society they had dreamed of. It would be based upon a simple congregational government of the sort that had eluded them back in England.

As they gathered on board the Mayflower to lay out the basis for their Christian government their dream took on political form in that famous document known as the 'Mayflower Compact'. This document was more than just a document for them and their colony. The Mayflower Compact was a type and a pattern of things to come. It crystallized the hopes and the aspirations of many Christians of Biblical Christian faith who would come after them.

thats was crap jefferson was saying this at the baptist convention. now you want to quote the supreme court, but when they vote against you you say its crap, lol. they could not find anything in the constituiton but jefferson comments tell me anywhere the founders all joined for it.

Separation of church and state
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Did the Founding Fathers support a separation of church and state?
PRO (yes) CON (no)

James M. Dunn, PhD, Resident Professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest University's School of Divinity, wrote in the chapter "Neutrality and the Establishment Clause" published in the 1990 book Equal Separation: Understanding the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, edited by Paul J. Weber:
"It was Jefferson who gave us the phrase, 'a wall of separation between church and state.' It's downright silly to act as if those specific words, 'separation of church and state,' have to be in the Constitution for the concept to be there.
Madison in pleading for Virginia's ratification of the new Constitution said, 'There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.' This view was consistent with his earlier comment on the Statute for Religious Liberty when he wrote Jefferson that the bill had 'extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.' Madison's logic requires a separation of church and state well beyond a flimsy injunction against the establishment of a national church...
...The Founders were divided but the majority favored separation of church and state. It was precisely for religious freedom, not against it, that Jefferson wanted to keep the church out of the state's business and vice versa."

1990 - James M. Dunn, PhD
_____________________________...
In Everson v. Board of Education (decided Feb. 10, 1947), the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, held that:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to
erect 'a wall of separation between church and

Separation of Church and State? The founding fathers’ views on religion and government
After the recent flap over the 9th circuit court’s pledge decision (ruling the added phrase ‘under God,’ inserted into the pledge in 1954, to be unconstitutional), I’ve received a lot of requests for the thoughts of the Founding fathers on the issue of Separation of Church and State. At issue is the belief of many mainstream Christians that separation is a later construct of the courts, and never intended by the founders. Another prominent argument is that the founders only opposed the establishment of one Christian sect over another, and not Christianity as a whole. Yet another popular belief is that the first amendment only applies to laws restricting religion, and that the majority should be able to do as they wish, using references to the ‘Creator’ in documents as a tacit endorsement of Christianity. I believe all of these arguments to be incorrect, and who better to argue the issue than the principal author of the constitution, founders themselves?

Quotes are arranged in a question/answer format, to highlight common arguments.

Argument one: The phrase ‘separation of Church and state’ is of recent origin, and the concept was not known or promulgated by the founders.

False. The Founders were well aware of the threats posed by religion/state entanglement; it’s what gave the world Kings with “divine right.”

The exact phrase was first used in Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to separate state and religion:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.” (1819).

Argument two: But the founders meant only that no sect of Christianity was to be elevated above another, but still meant our government to be Christian…

“Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform” (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

“Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. ” (ibid)

“How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment .” (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

Argument three: But one of the first acts of Congress was to appoint a Christian chaplain!

This they did do, years before the ratification of the bill of rights. Madison’s objection:

“The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor. " (Memorial and Remonstrance)

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country” (George Washington, 1789).

“In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst.” (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

“Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.” (ibid)

“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment’” (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support.” (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.” (John Adams)

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses….” (John Adams, 1787)

“…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” (ibid)

Further quotes:

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.” (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?” (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)




Joseph Farah, Founder, Editor, and Chief Executive Officer of WorldNetDaily.com, wrote in his Mar. 28, 2007 article "Stark, Raving Atheist," published on WorldNetDaily.com:
"Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported – strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis...
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'
Yet, throughout Jefferson's long life in politics and government, we see a man who, by today's standards, would be viewed by people like Stark [US Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)] as a card-carrying member of the religious right.
Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."