Bunny Trails

[Ernie]

In what world is this reminder difficult to understand?

What does your church believe about remarriage and divorce?
Please no bashing or criticisms of anyone.

This is a thread for simply stating the teachings of your church. It's not for argument against those teachings.

As the author of this thread I didn’t want a theological debate or arguments from the usual instigators and antagonists. I only seek to know what your present church teaches on remarriage and divorce to enrich my own understanding.

If you want to bicker about your views take it to the Bunny Trails topic per the rules of the forum. Would the mods please move the posts that debate over there?

Yes. This thread is good example of what is wrong about MennoNet. For about 15 years now, I have had this same difficulty on MN.

This post can be deleted once the thread is cleaned up.

[Thomas_muntzer]

To use a recent sample (from plain circles, actually), two spouses are at loggerheads. The wife filed for a divorce and demanded all the property, such as a clapped-out minivan and a storage shed crammed full of junk. She also demanded 100% parenting time and sole custody of the children including an adult disabled child.

I fully support the theology of the two kingdoms. But what do we do when the worldly and false kingdom (politics) interferes with something as sacred as marriage?

One of the biggest problems in the United States today is how the state incentivizes divorce and single parenthood. The courts typically receive a percentage of the cases they handle, so the perverse incentives are there so that instead of looking out for the interests of the parties, especially the children, they simply incentivize divorce to make more money.

[JohnH]

We belief marriage to be a lifelong bond that can be terminated only by death. We believe remarriage after legal divorce is not sanctioned by God.

What about an illegal one?

[Ken]

One of the biggest problems in the United States today is how the state incentivizes divorce and single parenthood. The courts typically receive a percentage of the cases they handle, so the perverse incentives are there so that instead of looking out for the interests of the parties, especially the children, they simply incentivize divorce to make more money.

This is simply not true. Nowhere in the US do the courts actually make a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. Courts do have various filing fees that are not specific to divorce cases. But nowhere in the US do the court systems run a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. They operate with tax dollars like any other government agency.

[seinetsodumm]

We belief marriage to be a lifelong bond that can be terminated only by death. We believe remarriage after legal divorce is not sanctioned by God.

What about an illegal one?

An illegal divorce? yeah, pretty sure unless someone is dead, that also does not provide a loophole for remarriage. The point of the statement is a divorce may be obtained through the legal system, but in the eyes of our church, divorce is not a valid termination of marriage. Marriage is only terminated by death.

[JohnH]

We belief marriage to be a lifelong bond that can be terminated only by death. We believe remarriage after legal divorce is not sanctioned by God.

What about an illegal one?

An illegal divorce? yeah, pretty sure unless someone is dead, that also does not provide a loophole for remarriage. The point of the statement is a divorce may be obtained through the legal system, but in the eyes of our church, divorce is not a valid termination of marriage. Marriage is only terminated by death.

A (now excommunicated) member of my church married another woman without even having the decency to divorce the first one. I guess he’s technically guilty of bigamy, but apparently they don’t bother to prosecute for that.

He used to have up a website with a sob story about how controlling and cult like our church was. Apparently, expecting people not to be bigamists is “controlling”.

[Thomas_muntzer]

This is simply not true. Nowhere in the US do the courts actually make a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. Courts do have various filing fees that are not specific to divorce cases. But nowhere in the US do the court systems run a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. They operate with tax dollars like any other government agency.

They get dollar for dollar federal reimbursements for every dollar of child support collected.

They also get rebate (free money) through the role of managing distributions of the SNAP assistance program. As it’s a common case to have a non-working mother they are incentivized naturally to have the mother as the primary/sole custodian to maximally enable the mother to qualify & receive SNAP assistance.

Our courts and state level systems naturally want maximal child support reimbursements(for maximal federal rebates), and maximal SNAP funding (for maximal state level payment from that program)

[Ken]

This is simply not true. Nowhere in the US do the courts actually make a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. Courts do have various filing fees that are not specific to divorce cases. But nowhere in the US do the court systems run a profit off of divorce or any other type of case. They operate with tax dollars like any other government agency.

They get dollar for dollar federal reimbursements for every dollar of child support collected.

They also get rebate (free money) through the role of managing distributions of the SNAP assistance program. As it’s a common case to have a non-working mother they are incentivized naturally to have the mother as the primary/sole custodian to maximally enable the mother to qualify & receive SNAP assistance.

Our courts and state level systems naturally want maximal child support reimbursements(for maximal federal rebates), and maximal SNAP funding (for maximal state level payment from that program)

You are talking about apples and oranges here.

Yes, there is a a federal incentive program that reimburses states for some child-support collection enforcement expenses. But they are being reimbursed for their expenses to use the court system and law enforcement system to seize child support payments from noncustodial parents who are illegally in arrears of their child support obligations. Because it can be a tedious and expensive process to track down deadbeat dads. In other words, the Federal government is trying to incentivize states to actually enforce child support agreements so that children affected by divorce don't live in poverty and are supported by their parents. This is a good thing, no?

But if you are in an ordinary divorce and as part of that divorce agree to make child support payments to your ex-wife and do so, then all of that money goes straight to your ex-wife in the form of child support and the state doesn't siphon off a dime of it or otherwise get reimbursed from the federal government. The courts and government don't get involved if you are a law abiding citizen and live up your family obligations. It isn't until you stop paying and become a deadbeat dad that they will eventually come after you for the money.

The SNAP thing is similar. The federal government wants to make sure that children are fed so they incentivize states to make sure that children who are eligible for SNAP benefits actually get them. Because yes, as a society we want to make sure that children are cared for. And that children receive whatever benefits they are entitled to, even in the case of divorce.

None of this means that courts make a profit off of divorce. Or have a financial incentive of any kind to encourage more divorce. They do not.

[temporal1]

G O L D E N T R O L L M A S T E R

[Jazman]

I'm no Trump fan, but I thought it would be good to acknowledge...this was objectively a good day for the Trump Administration.

• 1) Trade Victories: truce with China & recent deal with Britain.
  2) Dow up 1000+ points.
  3) Hamas' American hostage released.
  4) Pakistan/India truce holding.
  5) Given the gift of a luxury 747 from Qatar (may be a mixed blessing).
  6) Gas prices are holding at low levels.

I would contest the point about the 747... This may not seem like a big deal to us Mennos who've never served in the military, but apparently there's a whole lot of behind-the-scenes with Air Force One that make this kind of shift to something else very problematic... (and very expensive... accepting this 'gift' will actually cost us taxpayers more, ie blow another hole in the budget. I guess we'll see how serious the GOP or MAGA is about their very public supposed concerns are about "waste, fraud, abuse"...

Here's someone talking about this gift, from an informed, experience military/DoD perspective, that my Menno-no-military mind knows nothing about...
Dana, subscriber/commenter says "Even being retired (aircrew life support tech) since 2016, my old-school E-8 checklist mind is still apoplectic over this entire, latest bombshell of WH insanity. A massive depot-level VC-25 re-fit like this -- beyond a few seconds of fantasy musing... because this "just do what I say" concept speeds farther from reality, with each passing second -- would be years and billions, just for basic starters. Literally, down to every removable part... Air Force One is bespoke like no other airworthy object. Even then, the Boeing acquisition and airframe mx/incident history records will be handed to DoD by the same brokerage house serving as financial advisers to world terrorism.

Pull up the on-line links to the 89th Airlift Wing, Andrews AFB, MD, who operate the SAAM (Special Assignment Airlift Missions) fleet of many, various aircraft, aside from AF-One. Credible articles and tech source publications will let you go far into how vast and disciplined this specific facet of DoD is. Plus, kind of like wherever the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels show up for an official (diplomatic, in themselves) demonstration -- Air Force One is preceded and followed by an extensive fleet of DoD aircraft, attending solely to that one airframe's mission: Pre-positioning all of the (tightly-controlled) support equipment, armored motorcade vehicles, security gear, and even their own presidential "local color" tour aircraft, if venue side-trips are planned. All moved by military air, in-transit somewhere, 24/7, under the same command structure that maintains the operational control and integrity of that, one, alert-ready, flying command-post Air Force One. (Plus, spares.)

I just cannot conceive of professional, career USAF military aircrew, and the immense maintenance network supporting the 89th, actually following the upheaval of orders and procedure that Trump and his party-bus entourage will expect of where this is headed. What I do expect -- if this insanity follows suit of every other DIY new law & rule declared by this c-in-c from hell -- is that Musk/Hegseth, et al., will auto-sign Trump's "X" under a brilliant order to just shutter the 89th Airlift Wing, and just contract-out cool, compliant aircrew for Air Force One! Maybe there are some South African Air Force folks still at the "refugee" baggage carousel, ready to suit-up. After all, "aerodynamics" and "reality" are just guidelines."