The Daily Caller posted an article in which two Christian pastors are calling on others to stop performing government marriages.  Why not? The proposed pledge reads:

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

It continues:

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Why not get married in the church, but have a union not sanctioned as such by the civil government? In today’s secular culture, there is not much downside to couples living together. Why not be married in the eyes of the church, but not in the eyes of Uncle Sam?

In the days that most states recognized common law marriage, it would have made no substantive difference. Under common law principles, an adult unmarried couple (man and woman) who made a present promise commencing a marriage suddenly became married in the eyes of the state, without any license or ceremony being required. The problem typically became one of proof as to whether such a mutual promise of marriage ever occurred (usually after one alleged spouse died without a will).  Common law marriage is currently recognized in, I believe, nine states: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas, as well as in the District of Columbia.

Aside from common law marriage jurisdictions, the ceremonial but state-unsanctioned marriage would generally penalize couples on their income taxes, but benefit them on government welfare programs, where a couple’s incomes are combined to determine benefits. They would have to make sure they have done good estate planning, because they would lose the automatic protections that probate laws give to surviving spouses.

How about it?  Should Christians eschew government marriage in favor of church-only marriage?