[4sarge]

Originally Posted by techres

And there-in lies the rub. IF marriage is a holy matrimony recognized &/or sponsored by the state then marriage lends itself to all the fun in the sun of politics. If marriage is a contract recognized and upheld by the state, then welcome to contractual language.

Personally, I go for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's" approach. I.E. marriage is far too important to let the State have any part of it, and by doing so you protect it from any kind of redefinition.

Just like taking money from the Gov't as a religious group doing charity. You take the money, you take on the strings that always come from the gov
t! Personally, my synagogue voted to take no gov't funds, not because we could not make fine use of them, but because we did not want the gov't having anything to do with our faith, religion, etc. Better to keep ourself free of that potential intrusion or slavery.

The state gives with one hand and whallops with the other...

So are you saying marriages in your church are not recognized by the State. I'm saying that the politics (verbiage) changed in California because of the Government endorsed Special Interest Groups. Since the law defines and sanctions legal marriage then one would violate the law unless the law was followed (marriage license, blood test, etc)