During our SCECS Accepted Marriage, Mary and I learned more than just about our personalities. She and I learned that the SCECS Accepted Marriage is not the only avenue of governing the personal relationship.
What is difficult is that one’s understanding of ‘marriage’ can be quite limited, or one’s understanding of ‘marriage’ can be quite expanded. Looking back, Mary and I had a limited understanding.
What’s more is that one’s understanding of ‘marriage’ can be anthropological, biblical, historical, personal, ideological, philosophical, theological, ecclesiastical, existential, and/or any combination of those things.
Mary and I realized that our understanding of ‘marriage’ had been given to us primarily by the ecclesiastical (church).
The ecclesiastical that shaped our understanding of ‘marriage’ was the specific church point-of-view from our religious heritage. Through its ecclesiastical theological and ideological perspectives, it provided historical and biblical information, but it also presented understandings of ‘marriage’ from a personal nature.
That ecclesiastical point-of-view was quite specific:
– ‘marriage’ was heterosexual;
– ‘marriage’ between one man and one woman;
– ‘marriage’ was to be recognized by the church;
– ‘marriage’ was to be the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
But depending upon whom one considered authoritative, the definition of ‘marriage’ was further refined to mean that:
– God joined every human ‘marriage’ and
– God hated divorce.
That meant that God retained a spiritual connection to each spouse that prohibited a ‘marriage’ from ending in divorce even if/when a divorce had been obtained.
Without doubt, and from my personal observations and experiences, those definitions led to all kinds of familial strive and ecclesiastical division.
So here’s the reality: since arguments and debates ensued from those specificities, is it any wonder why families and entities within SCECS continually argue and debate ‘marriage’?
All of that means that one’s understanding of ‘marriage’ is shaped not only through family but also through each entity of SCECS.
So Mary and I realized that our understanding of ‘marriage’ had been shaped by our respective families, who supported the ecclesiastical.
Yet, Mary and I realized that our understanding of ‘marriage’ had been shaped by other entities within SCECS. Those entities mostly worked from similar perspectives as our families and the ecclesiastical, but on occasion those entities had different perspectives.
Together (the family, the ecclesiastical, and the entities), they provided their definitions, developments, and their understandings of ‘marriage’, along with identifying what they thought were the accountabilities and responsibilities of the individuals in that ‘marriage’.
All of that was done in order to shape our thoughts about ‘marriage’ in order for us to embody what the families and entities within SCECS believed ‘marriage’ should be.
Importantly, during the last few years, I studied ‘marriage’ from points-of-view other than my religious heritage (ecclesiastical).
The first different point-of-view was to study the Bible to gain a better understanding of what the Bible either says or does not say about ‘marriage’. That was done to determine if my religious heritage had a sustainable understanding of ‘marriage’.
To the dismay of many family and friends within my religious heritage, I came to disagree significantly with how my religious heritage defines, develops, and understands ‘marriage’ and how it identifies accountabilities and responsibilities of the individuals within ‘marriage’.
While my primary study of ‘marriage’ has been from the Biblical perspective, to gain a better understanding of what occurs outside the Biblical narrative, I spent time examining historical and anthropological aspects of ‘marriage’.
I considered the Private Contract from several perspectives, including: anthropological, biblical, historical, personal, ideological, philosophical, theological, ecclesiastical, and existential.
Furthermore, I came to recognize that the families and the entities within SCECS, by Electorate participation, control the definitions, developments, understandings of the SCECS Accepted Marriage, and provide the accountabilities, and responsibilities for the participants within the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Additionally, I came to recognize that the families and the entities within SCECS, by Electorate participation, have determined that the State will become the active, governing, third-party participant in the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Up through about 2016, Mary and I didn’t know anything other than the SCECS Accepted Marriage definitions, developments, understandings, accountabilities, and responsibilities.
Functionally, that means she and I did not understand that our personal relationship could be governed by something other than the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Only after substantial anthropological, biblical, and historical study did Mary and I learn that our personal relationship is not required to be governed by the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
That means that she and I learned that the SCECS Accepted Marriage is not the only avenue that individuals can use to formalize and legally govern their personal relationship.
It wasn’t until Mary and I recognized that, that Mary and I were able to determine for ourselves that a different avenue, the Private Contract, could govern formally and legally our personal relationship.
Understanding those things, Mary and I came to the conclusion that the SCECS Accepted Marriage was not the best avenue for our personal relationship. So she and I decided to terminate our SCECS Accepted Marriage in order to write a Private Contract to govern our personal relationship.