Let's Return to the Separation of Marriage and State

But if we did that then people might not stay married and the govt would lose revenue and heterosexuals might not be prone to fidelity!!! Oh, wait...

 

Homosexual marriages would automatically be legal then, because some religion married them under their standards. With no legal binding what so ever there would be no responsibility in the event of divorce, which would become easier and cheaper, no alimony, or paying for your own children. Since there was no legal marriage there would be no legal obligations and responsibilities concerning marriage. The number of wives wouldn't matter anymore, as long as some religious group would marry them.
Yes I'm sure the homosexuals, people like the LFDS would love to see the government have nothing to do with regulating marriage.

 

Riiiiight... because the unlicensed would be exempt from child support as they currently are.

 

So does God need the government to protect His divine institution?

 

If He does, poor Him. Have you seen the stats? They aren't exactly protecting anything.

::realizes the question wasn't serious::

 

I actually like the way it works here. We are not a recognised church so our weddings don't "count" with the state. Couples go to the registry office to get legally married in the state's eyes, then we have a church wedding for them.

I like the division there. Hom*se*ual marriage is illegal, so the state won't marry those couples.

 

I am not offering a personal opinion in this reply, just an interesting theological and historical fact.

The Pilgrims, of 1620, did not believe in religious marriages. In fact, that was sort of the rule among early American seperatists. William Bradford, Christian and first Governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote:

"May 12 was the first marriage in this place which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was throught most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as part of their office. This decree or law about marriage was published by the States of the Low Countries Anno 1590. That those of any religion (after lawful and open publication) coming before the magistrates in the Town, or State house, were to be orderly (by them) married one to another. -Pitit's History, fol. 1029. And this practice hath continued amongst not only them, but hath been followed by all the famous churches of Christ in these parts to this time - Anno 1646." -William Bradford, "Of Plymouth Plantation"

Colonial historian Edmund Morgan wrote the following about this issue in his wonderful little book "The Puritan Family":

"The wedding itself took place under supervision of the state. Although marriage retained a solemn religious significance, all ecclesiastical ceremonies connected with it were abandoned; and the minister was replaced by a civil magistrate, who was forbidden to join any couple unless they had been published according to law...Civil magistrates continued to perform all marriages in New England until 1686." -pgs31-32

It is likely that the reasoning behind their abandoning all church connections to the marriage ceremony had to do with their great distain for the Anglican Church and Catholic Church. They were attempting to go in the other direction and this, I believe, was part of that direction. As Morgan points out, church weddings did start after 1686 when New England was put under direct English rule.

 

This applies only if every person who marries in the world is christian, or the world is 100% christian. Otherwise people need to be protected.
Lets do away with laws, and police, and courts, governments and nations then. Does God need help governing the world and leading man?

 

Why is homosexual marriage illegal? Because the state said so?
Doesn't seem to fit with your previous statement.