The key is again terms.
I'm a stickler for terms. In seminary we had to take hours upon hours upon hours of classes called Hermeneutics. For some of you who grasp hermeneutics this will bore you so skip on down to the next paragraph if you desire. These classes were designed to do two things:
1. Make us aware and believers in the doctrine known as verbal plenary inspiration, and
2. To make us aware of how to dig into the historical culture, original grammar of the Hebrew and/or Greek to obtain the precise forms of the individual words while interpreting those words in context. We'd had to sometimes write/type 50 pages of information sometimes just on a few verses of Scripture. We'd be bellyaching and moaning and complaining and by the end just downright frustrated with the work it required. Brains fried, hands hurting and cramped, and eyes watering from so much reading and information being gathered to meet the demands of the teacher. In many cases it was also a round of learning English grammar too! Dissecting sentences, parsing words, defining terms, uuuuggghhhhh......I still recall the labor of it. But in the end we were much more skilled in learning how to properly interpret words with precision as penned by the original authors to the original audience. :geek: As many our teachers in those classes said: "It is our duty as interpreters to discover what the author meant to the original audience and to explain the original meaning. It cannot mean today what it did not mean back then."
Why do I belabor this point? It goes back to verbal inspiration and the practical application of that doctrine to us today. Individual words are critical! For example, even just a small misspelling of a word or difference in a few letters can convey different thoughts:
Deacon or Demon
Car or Bar
Lord or Cord
Likewise the difference between saying "wife" and "my woman" or "marriage" and "union" can make a huge difference legally.
Just one letter can change an entire idea and situation all together. As Dr. Charles Ryrie said in his book on inerrancy of Scripture: "letters spell words, and words compose sentences, and sentences make promises. If you spell one word one way, it is specific word; if you spell it another way, even only a single letter differently it is a different word. Tough means strong. One letter changed means spells touch. One letter added spells though. Single letter spell different words" (What you Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 59).
The legal field works the same way. Laws, just like God's laws in the Bible, are composed of specific words set in a historical context by real people who debate the ideas before ratification in the legal code. Lawyers go through similar training in courses on legal interpretation that theologians do in hermeneutics. Laws must be carefully interpreted, examined historically, cross checked contextually with other codes and even higher codes like the constitution and then it can be explained in light of some circumstance and factors that it has been applied to. Just like in theology too there is in legal fields different theories of how to best interpret words and laws and even the constitution. Some embrace Natural Law theory, some embrace strict originalism, some embrace legal positivism. Others embrace a combination thereof.
But again in all cases it boils down to how are words used, defined, interpreted, and applied.
Thus, it is more proper and fitting for the time and era we currently live in both biblically and legally to steer clear or choose alternative primary terms and use other terms in place of other terms that are not as precise. In Scripture for example gune in Greek simply means woman. When in the accusative case followed by the genitive pronoun "his" gunaika (woman) it is best translated into English simply as that, "his woman," or a "joined woman." But in light of women seeking to marry women it is likely even better there to say "a woman joined to a man" though that is little more dynamic in translational theory instead of formal equivalence which seeks to be one word in the receptor language for one word from the transmitting language. But it does convey the thought behind the original there in that aspect.
The term wife is a legal term that came over from the Roman state system from our European ancestry. It came to the shores of this nation and became the common phrase used by Colonial Americans and then in the United States. In one sense there is a case to be made that the term is now copyrighted and protected by the case law and federal laws and numerous state codes (kinda of like being trademarked).
Common law applies when people hold themselves out to the public to be husband and wife, using those actual precise terms Thus, using those specific terms brings with it certain legal attachments. Some states do not recognize common law anymore. Others do. But most, if not all, require that the people speak and claim to be husband and wife. That speech and actions make it so.
However, by law, especially Lawrence versus Texas where there was a 6 to 3 decision by the United States Supreme court private sexual relations is not something that can be or ought to be governed by the State or Federal law code. Even one of the Justices who did not agree with the decision said he agreed with the idea philosophically that those laws forbidding that were dumb and that law enforcement did not need to be policing private consensual relations. He just embraced a different legal principle and took the position he did not have the authority to overrule a state law code from the federal bench in that particular case. But otherwise he agreed with the idea behind the ruling but not per the actual ruling of it by the federal court. Furthermore, now many constitutions define "marriage" as a man to a woman and they further define how one can be legally in that which is most often through the legal licensure system, which makes it clear as legal attachment always follows with that. Thus, those who do not use the state's terms and those who do not obtain a license and those who do not proclaim themselves to be publicly recognized as husband and wife are by law considered not married. Other laws come into play but then then so does Lawrence versus Texas case which is now case law for all of the states in the union.
Even many law books, such as even the most Basic Black's Law Dictionary, is now even using terms like POSSLQ (People of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) to define cohabitating couples. The American Bar Association even has in their Everyman's Legal Guidebook guidance on how to establish cohabitation agreements and they too say the laws on "fornication" are basically obsolete, which is true in light of Lawrence versus Texas.
Of course, some dictionaries use the term "wife" to be a figure of speech and in that sense one can skirt by with the term if it clearly defined.
But overall is it better to use other terms like "mate," "helpmate," "my woman," "my man," "union," "coalescent union," or other like terms to convey the natural, philosophical, theological, and legal idea behind the type of union it is. In doing so it steers clear of crossing over into legal issues that can be problematic for the family as a unit and their goals, and it can also actually present something that is not actually true biblically. For example, in almost every state now there are laws for marriages that give each couple "no fault divorce rights," so in that light how can any believer who obeys the Bible agree to a license that gives one or both partners the legal right to simply leave at will with no reason? Some states have embraced laws to make something called a covenant marriage to try and offset this but not many have. The very licensure marriage systems have defined their systems very differently than the Bible has defined a covenant union that exists under Christ's Lordship. The state defines a "marriage" as a contract granted by the legal authorities. The Bible defines a "covenant union or union" as a covenant or promise made by families or individuals together. The two are not the same.
Thus, it seems best in light of current conditions if we define our own terms and avoid confusing terms and ideas together that cause conflict with the state authorities that we are to respect and honor.
Well while laughing with you and the comment do know that it really is in the works and has been for some time by providence, at least for some to be more involved with us! Even Apostle Paul had a lawyer with him as well as did Dr. Luther in the Reformation. They can be of great aid in certain circumstances. So make that a matter of prayer that the Lord brings a certain one or two along to be involved more......
) i am a little cryptic in my written communication. i hope that this explained it a little better 