A more pertinent question would be, if the same sex marriage dissolves via a divorce would they be free to remarry? The Elders Super-Secret Special Manual seems mute on this point. Perhaps a letter will be published soon from mother with instructions.
Now that Gays can legally get married, if one of the gay couple want to become a JW would he or she have to get a divorce?
by booker-t 11 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
blondie
The WTS does make a pretense of observing secular marriage laws but
1) Even if polygamy is allowed in a country, since 1947 it has been forbidden to all jws to have multiple wives and jws with multiple wives already when then wanted to be baptized were required to stay married to the first wife living and release the others but make financial care of their children.
2) If a person studied with jws and had not gotten a divorce on scriptural reasons but legal secularly, remarried another person, they were not required to divorce the second and go back to the first.
3) The WTS could not invalidate a secularly legal marriage....
4) In some countries adultery was not a valid reason for divorce (Catholic/Greek Orthodox for example) the WTS would allow it for their organizational purposes but have the couple sign a form saying they went through this WT procedure and would marry secularly upon the death of the first mate or a change in the secular law.
In those days, in many countries where the Catholic Church held sway, divorce of any kind was not allowed, not even the jw "scriptural" one of adultery. If a jw wanted to get a divorce based on adultery it was not legal per the secular authorities.
*** w77 3/15 Maintaining Marriage in Honor Before God and Men ***
WHERE CAESAR’S RECOGNITION IS UNAVAILABLE
24 Understanding the relative nature of Caesar’s authority regarding marriage is here helpful. Take, for example, those areas where, either because of the dominance of some religion or for other reasons, the law does not allow for any divorce, not even on the Scriptural grounds of “fornication” (por?nei′a). A man whose wife proved unfaithful to him might have left her and thereafter formed a union with another mate, by whom he may even have a family. He may then learn the truth of God’s Word and, in obedience to that Word, desire to be baptized as a disciple of God’s Son. Because the national law does not agree with God’s law regarding divorce and remarriage, he cannot obtain a divorce and legalize his present union. What can he do?
25 If his circumstances permit, he might go to a neighboring land that does grant divorce and obtain such there and then remarry under the laws of that land. This might serve to add some honor to his union, although upon returning to his homeland the marriage might not be recognized by the “Caesar” ruling there. If he cannot reasonably do this, he should get a legal separation from his estranged, legal mate, or whatever the local law makes possible. Thereafter he should make a written statement to the local congregation pledging faithfulness to his present mate and declaring his agreement to obtain a legal marriage certificate if the estranged legal wife should die or if other circumstances should make possible the obtaining of such registration. If his present mate likewise seeks baptism, she would also make such a signed statement.
26 In one South American country, although the law provides for annulment of marriage in cases of bigamy, applications for such annulment are often simply ignored by “Caesar.” Consider, then, a man who, while already having a legal living wife, separates from her and marries another woman and falsely obtains a legal certification, thereby becoming bigamous. If, upon learning Bible truth, he seeks baptism, he may find that his efforts to straighten out the legal situation regarding his current marriage are frustrated by the lack of interest on the part of the civil authorities. If unable to do anything to elevate in honor his present union through Caesar’s courts or authorities, how could he proceed? He could sign a similar declaration pledging faithfulness and file this with the congregation. Then he could be accepted for baptism, as could his mate by doing the same.
27 In a certain west African country, it may take up to ten years to obtain a divorce. Would a person desirous of being baptized, but needing a divorce so as to establish legally his or her present marital union, be obliged to postpone baptism for such a period of years? It does not seem proper that the lack of Caesar’s legal recognition should block him from showing his faith in the sin-atoning power of Christ’s sacrifice by taking the vital step of baptism and thus gaining the privilege of an approved relationship with God. (Compare the apostle’s statement at Acts 11:17 as to humans’ inability to “hinder” God in his approving of persons.) Bible examples indicate that unnecessary delay in taking the step of baptism is not advisable. (Acts 2:37-41; 8:34-38; 16:30-34; 22:16) Having initiated the legal process of divorce, such person would then provide the congregation with a statement pledging faithfulness, thereby establishing his determination to maintain his current union in honor while he continues to follow through on his efforts to gain as well the legal recognition that Caesar provides,
28 Persons may move to another country and while there they may learn the truth and wish to be baptized. In order to obtain legal recognition of their existing marital relationship, they may need first to obtain a divorce from a previous mate. It may be that the country to which they have moved has provisions for divorce but such provisions may not be available to them as foreigners. For example, many persons from other European countries have moved into Germany seeking employment. While Germany has provisions for divorce, these provisions do not embrace most noncitizens. In such cases, also, the individuals desiring to be baptized and seeking to establish the honorableness and permanence of their existing marital relationship would sign a declaration pledging faithfulness.
29 These same principles would apply for a baptized Christian who finds that “Caesar’s” laws would not grant him legal recognition in his exercise of God-given rights regarding divorce and remarriage. For example, in countries that do not recognize the God-given right to divorce an adulterous mate and remarry, an individual whose mate proves unfaithful (and from whom he therefore chooses to separate, not forgiving her) should submit the clear evidence of this infidelity to the elders of the congregation. Then, if at some future time he (or she) were to decide to take another mate, this could be done in an honorable way, the parties to the marriage signing statements pledging faithfulness and the determination to gain legal recognition whenever such should become feasible.
30 The signing of such a written statement pledging faithfulness is viewed by the congregation as a putting of oneself on record before God and man that the signer will be just as faithful to his or her existing marital relationship as he or she would be if the union were one validated by civil authorities. Such declaration is viewed as no less binding than one made before a marriage officer representing a “Caesar” government of the world. In reality, it is not the particular kind of document made but the fact that the individual makes the declaration before God that gives it its greatest weight and solemnity.
31 How might such a declaration be worded? It could contain a statement such as the following:
“I, ......., do here declare that I have accepted .......... as my mate in marital relationship; that I have done all within my ability to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the proper public authorities and that it is because of having been unable to do so that I therefore make this declaration pledging faithfulness in this marital relationship. I recognize this relationship as a binding tie before Jehovah God and before all persons, to be held to and honored in full accord with the principles of God’s Word. I will continue to seek the means to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the civil authorities and if at any future time a change in circumstances makes this possible I promise to legalize this union.
“Signed this .......... day of ........., 19..... Witnesses to my signing: .....................................”
32 As indicated above, this declaration should be signed by the one making the declaration and also by two others as witnesses, and the date should be noted thereon. It is advisable for copies of the statement pledging faithfulness to be kept by each of the persons involved and by the congregation with which they are associated, and one copy should be sent to the Branch office of the Watch Tower Society in that area. It would also be beneficial for an announcement to be made to the congregation that such a declaration has been made so that all will be aware of the conscientious steps that are being taken to uphold the honorableness of the marriage relationship.
33 Where the person is unable to gain “Caesar’s” recognition but takes the proper steps to establish his marriage with the congregation, he must realize that whatever consequences result to him as far as the world outside is concerned are his sole responsibility and must be faced by him. For example, if some legal issue, involving property or inheritance rights, arises due to an earlier marriage union, the individual cannot claim “Caesar’s” judicial protection as regards his new, unrecognized union.
KEEPING BASIC PRINCIPLES CLEAR
34 From country to country, marriage and divorce legislation presents a multitude of different angles and aspects. Rather than becoming entangled in a confusion of technicalities, the Christian, or the one desiring to become a disciple of God’s Son, can be guided by basic Scriptural principles that hold true in all cases.
35 God’s view is of first concern. So, first of all the person must consider whether that one’s present relationship, or the relationship into which he or she contemplates entering, is one that could meet with God’s approval or whether, in itself, it violates the standards of God’s Word. Take, for example, the situation where a man lives with a wife but also spends time living with another woman as a concubine. As long as such a state of concubinage prevails, the relationship of the second woman can never be harmonized with Christian principles, nor could any declaration on the part of the woman or the man make it do so. The only right course is cessation of the relationship. Similarly with an incestuous relationship with a member of one’s immediate family, or a homosexual relationship or other such situation condemned by God’s Word. (Matt. 19:5, 6; 1 Tim. 3:2; 1 Cor. 5:1) It is not the lack of any legal validation that makes such relationships unacceptable; they are in themselves unscriptural and, hence, immoral. Hence, a person involved in such a situation could not make any kind of ‘declaration of faithfulness,’ since it would have no merit in God’s eyes.
36 If the relationship is such that it can have God’s approval, then a second principle to consider is that one should do all one can to establish the honorableness of one’s marital union in the eyes of all. (Heb. 13:4) A person seeking baptism may be one who, in the past, separated from a legal mate and, without having obtained a divorce, entered into a marital relationship with another person. Considerable time may have passed, and perhaps children have resulted. So, upon learning the truth the person cannot reasonably be expected to go back to his first mate and thus try to refashion his life according to his previous circumstances. But now, in ‘desisting from sins,’ he must determine that his life henceforth will be lived according to God’s will.—1 Pet. 4:1-3; compare 1 Corinthians 7:17-24.
37 What then? If divorce is possible, then such step should now be taken so that, having obtained the divorce (on whatever legal grounds may be available), the present union can receive civil validation as a recognized marriage. These same things would be true of the person who, before learning the truth, has become guilty of bigamy. He should take the necessary steps to have the matter resolved legally (as by annulment and/or divorce) so that he or she may now be recognized as the legal mate of only one person.
38 Finally, if the marital relationship is not one out of harmony with the principles of God’s Word, and if one has done all that can reasonably be done to have it recognized by civil authorities and has been blocked in doing so, then a declaration pledging faithfulness can be signed. In some cases, as has been noted, the extreme slowness of official action may make the accomplishing of legal steps a matter of many, many years of effort. Or it may be that the costs represent a crushingly heavy burden that the individual would need years to be able to meet. In such cases the declaration pledging faithfulness will provide the congregation with the basis for viewing the existing marriage as honorable, while the individual continues conscientiously to work out the legal aspects to the best of his ability. A fact worth noting is that in many communities, and even in entire countries, the people themselves give little importance to the legal factors involved in marriage and are far more affected by what they actually see as evidence of a faithful marriage union. Nevertheless, even here the Christian should sincerely endeavor to take whatever steps are available, or that open up for him, to establish the honorableness of his union beyond question.
39 By keeping in mind the basic principles presented, the Christian should be able to approach the matter in a balanced way, neither underestimating nor overestimating the validation offered by the political state. He (or she) should always give primary concern to God’s view of the union. Along with this, every effort should be made to set a fine example of faithfulness and devotion to one’s mate, thus keeping the marriage “honorable among all.” Such course will bring God’s blessing and result to the honor and praise of the Author of marriage, Jehovah God.—1 Cor. 10:31-33.
[Footnotes]
In Roman Law, the “sole necessary condition for marriage” was “the consent of the parties” with no preliminary license, ceremony or other validation required. (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 198, 199) Thus, if a man proposed marriage to a woman and she consented, this was all that was legally required to make a marriage effective.
As reference works show, the Roman Catholic Church eventually claimed for itself the exclusive right to legislate regarding marriage, bringing forth its own regulations and restrictions and holding that civil authorities must be bound by these. The Protestant Reformers swung very much in the other direction and placed marriage almost entirely in the hands of the civil authorities. In England, Scotland and Ireland the civil ceremony was introduced in 1653 to free the Church from secular affairs. A French law of 1792 made the civil ceremony obligatory upon all citizens on the principle that “the citizen belongs to the state, irrespective of religion.” (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 199, 200)