Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pete

This is not going to work. Fred’s first marriage was at age 17. No church, of which I am aware, would not concede that a marriage contracted at such an early age and under the particular circumstances there does not involve a strong possibility that the element of consent was absent, which would make it subject to annulment (i.e.- the marriage did not exist at all).

I believe strongly in the indissolubility of marriage, but I am not in the least bothered by Fred Thompson’s divorce and remarriage. Even less than Reagan’s, which was contracted between two people in their late 20s as opposed to a couple of teenagers facing a pregnancy.


21 posted on 06/21/2007 7:10:11 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Brices Crossroads
which would make it subject to annulment

Since you don't find the concept of annulment in the Bible, it is not a term you normally hear used by members of the church of Christ. Divorce is a sin, and under the new covenant, Christ said it is only permitted in God's eyes in the event of adultry. The most conservative view is that if a person divorces for other than adultry, they should remain single. If they remarry other than their first spouse, they cause their subsequent spouse to commit adultry because that is what the Bible says.

Since each congregation of the church of Christ is autonomous, some are more tolerant of divorce and remarriage for reasons other than adultry, and some define adultry in a broad sense such as when a spouse is no longer faithful based on either thoughts or deeds.

100 posted on 06/21/2007 8:54:07 AM PDT by OrangeDaisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Brices Crossroads
This is not going to work. Fred’s first marriage was at age 17. No church, of which I am aware, would not concede that a marriage contracted at such an early age and under the particular circumstances there does not involve a strong possibility that the element of consent was absent, which would make it subject to annulment (i.e.- the marriage did not exist at all).

I believe strongly in the indissolubility of marriage, but I am not in the least bothered by Fred Thompson’s divorce and remarriage. Even less than Reagan’s, which was contracted between two people in their late 20s as opposed to a couple of teenagers facing a pregnancy.

I am not sure where you got your information from (I'm not saying its wrong, Its just different from what I heard). I am aware that marriages between people before they turned 21 was/still is to some extent common. Regarding Thompsons first marriage, I remember reading years ago, that him and his first wife got married, because they were a couple of "love struck kids", who really hadn't thought it out. I do not know the age of his older kids, or if it was a pregnacy scare, it came across to me as 2 kids wide eyed thinking they were in love and rushing to get down the alter......something I've seen far to many folks do, and usually (not always) regret...and sadly, not to many religious institutions I've come across have had problems with it.

129 posted on 06/21/2007 11:05:04 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson