Seppis: Are the "Kids" Legally Married or Not?

[DomWackTroll]

Here’s their latest post on FB:

"Gays ‘want in’ the state licensing of marriage, but why are Christians not wanting out? What business is it of the state to rule over God’s primary covenantal institution—the family? If it’s a question of alimony and child support, the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:7, ‘Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law with one another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?' The greater sin, he said, was going to the wicked for judgment.â€

Are they saying that wives and kids should just starve in the case of divorce/separation?

When one of their friends says that she had to get legally married to take her husband’s surname, they reply, “Yes, we understand that. Megan [Lance's wife] changed her name at the courthouse.â€

Does this mean that their “married†children are not legally married?

facebook.com/seppifamily/posts/10206049163443802?pnref=story

[16strong]

It certainly seems like Lance and Megan are not legally married. I don't know if that applies to all of their kids or not, though. The Seppis are so weird. Why would you not want the legal benefits and protections that come with being married, if you consider yourself married? What if your spouse is in a serious accident? :think:

[December]

Kind of odd they would have a woman change her surname at the courthouse (whether through a petition or a normal marriage license), if state licensing of God-ordained institutions is so evil. Like, if it's good enough for God that you get married at a church (but not on paper), why would God care whether the woman assumes her husband's last name on paper?

Bizarre Facebook post though... I wonder, too.

[punkiepie]

Here’s their latest post on FB:

"Gays ‘want in’ the state licensing of marriage, but why are Christians not wanting out? What business is it of the state to rule over God’s primary covenantal institution—the family? If it’s a question of alimony and child support, the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:7, ‘Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law with one another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?' The greater sin, he said, was going to the wicked for judgment.â€

Are they saying that wives and kids should just starve in the case of divorce/separation?

When one of their friends says that she had to get legally married to take her husband’s surname, they reply, “Yes, we understand that. Megan [Lance's wife] changed her name at the courthouse.â€

Does this mean that their “married†children are not legally married?

facebook.com/seppifamily/posts/10206049163443802?pnref=story

Here's the thing with the Bible- you can point me out a verse that says "the sky is blue" and I can flip out around and show you one that says "the sky is orange." Well actually, both are true, the sky is sometimes blue and the sky is sometimes orange. If you take a verse out of its context, it loses the real meaning.

First, Corinthians were letters written by Paul to new christian churches that we're having a difficult time. He wrote them letters to direct their behavior. Many theologians argue that paul never meant for these letters to become "gospel" as they were directed to specific churches and the answers were direct answers to those problems. Without taking into account who paul is writing to, why he was writing it, the social and religious customs of the time, and the very new establishment of christianity, these letters have resulted in egregious distortions by fundamentalists. Paul also said in his letter that all "all Cretans are always liars, evil beasts and lazy brutes." How many times have the crazy fundamentalists preached a message on why to never trust a person from Crete? That would be never; because it only makes sense in the context in which it was written- specifially, he was writing about the Cretan poet Epimenides.

So when Paul writes in his letter that it's better to be wronged than to have the government settle disputes, he's telling this church to have their people work out the disputed among themselves instead of bringing every single grievance to a tribunal. Buy, back then, there was no such thing as child support and alimony. In fact, in James, there is direct command to look after the widow and the orphan.

For me, the buck stops with Jesus, in terms of interpreting what is most important; and he says, paraphrasing here, that whatever you do for the for those who are worse off than you- in any kind of way, you did it to and for him. And whatever you didn't do, that you were able to do, for those worse off than yourself, you failed to do to him. Jesus is identifying with the outcasts, misfits, heathens, sinners, poor, and diseased; not the righteous perfect people.

When the Seppi's write shit like this, it makes me ragey. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's- so clearly then, he was game with recognizing and supporting your government. The other problem with Seppi's, and all hyper-Calvinists for that matter, is that they have elevated the letters of Paul over the words of Jesus. Then they distort and misconstrue it to suit their own needs and beliefs.

From what I read in the post and comments, I do think their kids are legally married. But that they are possibly advocating for people to have spiritual marriages now that ebil gays can legally marry. I also wonder if this had something to do with Greg and his ex-wife? Maybe some kind of issue with that situation.

As someone who was raised in an IFB church, it has taken me years to undo all the damage that was done-mentally, emotionally and spiritual. Somedays I don't think I will ever recover. I don't know exactly what I believe anymore, but my biggest reason for wanting there to be a Heaven is so I can see my Mema again; I'm sure she's there if it's real. But then I think, if there is an actual heaven, I probably won't be there. I sure as hell don't want to be in a heaven with people like the Seppis and their hate spewing vitriol.

[DGayle]

It certainly seems like Lance and Megan are not legally married. I don't know if that applies to all of their kids or not, though. The Seppis are so weird. Why would you not want the legal benefits and protections that come with being married, if you consider yourself married? What if your spouse is in a serious accident? :think:

If you're part of an opposite-sex couple and say you're married, nobody will question you. When my husband and I were engaged, I had a medical emergency, and he told them he was my husband so he could consent for what was needed, instead of waiting to find a family member, the closest whose 2,500 miles away. We had agreed ahead of that that if anything happened to me, we'd claim married. His family was all local, so there wasn't any worry about nobody having a legal say in anything. Nobody asked to see a license or any proof.

How many times are opposite-sex legally-married couples ever asked for their license?

[DomWackTroll]

Now Regina comments: "We got one to inform the state of our covenant. The state should protect the family and therefore not recognize polyamy or other 'marriages'."

These Seppis and the nutty beliefs they don't follow. Public schools are bad, but it's okay if I work in one for decades and retire with my nice pension. Marriage licenses are bad, except when I want to "inform the state of my covenant."

[Howl]

I googled around a bit to find out what legal protections are granted to married couples. The categories where special status accrues to married couples include:

death, debts, divorce, family leave, health, housing, immigration, inheritance, insurance, portability (marriage from one state recognized in all other states), parenting, privilege (immunity from testifying against each other in legal proceedings), property, retirement and taxes. All of these categories can affect families, typically in positive ways.

If they don't want to be "legally married", let them deal with the fall out down the line. Time will go by, the husband dies and the non-wife will have NO access to his social security -- that will be the true tragedy. Sadly, this not marrying in the eyes of the law has the potential to be financially devastating to the women involved, especially much later in life.

I noticed the commenter included the state protecting the family by outlawing polygamy (actually, continuing to outlaw polygamy). Polygamy is rife in the bible, doncha know. Yeah, THAT bible.

[Marian the Librarian]

I wonder if the Seppis are piggybacking on to David Botkin's recent (May 30) FB post about how members of the Holy Order of Smug do marriage right - i.e., no officiant, making their vows directly to one another. Although David does acknowledge that he and Nadia did get a Tennessee marriage license:

Yes, we did get a license. It's the cheapest, fastest, way to get everything legally setup in the eyes of the State - i.e. name changes, ability to make medical decisions on behalf of the spouse if incapacitated, etc. And in TN they are really picky - they don't recognize "common law" marriages (I've heard of people having to "get married" again after coming to TN - the County Clerks thinks it's kind of funny), but then they also don't recognize sodomite "marriages" or marriages between first cousins, so maybe I don't mind the pickiness.

[DomWackTroll]

I wonder if the Seppis are piggybacking on to David Botkin's recent (May 30) FB post about how members of the Holy Order of Smug do marriage right - i.e., no officiant, making their vows directly to one another. Although David does acknowledge that he and Nadia did get a Tennessee marriage license:

Yep, the Botkins are hypocrites about it, too. What is the point of even writing these posts and promoting this opinion about marriage licenses if your FB friends are going to ask you about your personal actions and you have to eat crow? I don't get it.

[FoxyMoxie]

Re the Seppis, I hope they realise that plenty of ebil gays in places where they can't get married have 'covenant marriages' too. Yes, even full-on Christian ones.

Re the Botkins, what happens when TN recognises same-gender marriages (as I think is inevitable)? Divorce? :think:

[ViolaSebastian]

I wonder if the Seppis are piggybacking on to David Botkin's recent (May 30) FB post about how members of the Holy Order of Smug do marriage right - i.e., no officiant, making their vows directly to one another. Although David does acknowledge that he and Nadia did get a Tennessee marriage license:

Yo Botkin, cousin marriage is 100% supported in the Bible. Numbers 36: 1-11: Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad:

11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their fathers brothers' sons.

[16strong]

Yo Botkin, cousin marriage is 100% supported in the Bible. Numbers 36: 1-11: Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad:

11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their fathers brothers' sons.

It's pointless. It can be written in the bible 2,000 times, but if they don't like it, they'll ignore it or find some excuse for why it doesn't count.

[hoipolloi]

Sounds like the same bullshit that Michael Pearl puts out about his kids not having marriage licenses.

Whatever -- they're all hypocritical assholes.

[browngrl]

If you're part of an opposite-sex couple and say you're married, nobody will question you. When my husband and I were engaged, I had a medical emergency, and he told them he was my husband so he could consent for what was needed, instead of waiting to find a family member, the closest whose 2,500 miles away. We had agreed ahead of that that if anything happened to me, we'd claim married. His family was all local, so there wasn't any worry about nobody having a legal say in anything. Nobody asked to see a license or any proof.

How many times are opposite-sex legally-married couples ever asked for their license?

I think it is a terrible idea to just assume that no one will check if you are the legal next of kin. Sure you might get away with it if the medical situation is minor or if the patient can give their own consent or if the legal next of kin is happy to have you make the decisions but for serious issues you might have a BIG problem.

In an acute medical crisis where time is of the essence - life saving medical actions will be taken regardless of whether or not someone is available to give consent BUT even while the acute resuscitation is going on the hospital will actively take steps to find out the legal next of kin. Once the acute situation if dealt with -if the patient is not able to give consent - the doctors will turn to the legal next of kin to make further decisions. Often we will call a family conference to make critical decisions BUT if you do not get along with the legal next of kin or if you want something done/not done that the next of kin disagrees with - you will be out of luck and could easily find yourself left out of the decision making process. My strong advice: if it is important to you/your partner that the other makes the critical legal decisions if the other can't then make it legal.Assuming everything will just work out is foolish.

Also: I am a woman married to a man. We have different last names and we are different races. Particularly when we have travelled in parts of the world where racism can be an issue we have been questioned if we are married. So, it does happen.

[salex]

We've had to present a copy of our marriage license on a couple of 401K / investment deals, though I can't remember right now why.

Lately I've been filling out a lot of medical paperwork. They ask who (if anyone) I am willing for them to share or discuss my medical status (HIPAA rules) and I just say Mr. Salex and when they ask relationship, I say spouse. No proof needed. However, I also believe if I said "Bob Smith" and they asked relationship and I put "friend" they would still go by the document I signed, though I have no proof of that. HIPAA rules have been used by people to prevent spouses from knowing the ailing partner was being treated for AIDS, so I think many hospitals will not violate what you have signed off on as to who may or may not know (or have input) to your medical decisions. I am consistently asked if I have a medical directive--and that too would be a way to define who had medical POA>