“…by the authority vested in me as a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws of this state…”
Thus, thousands of Southern Baptist clergy complete a marriage ceremony by some fashion or wording invoking the authority granted them by the government, the state.
How are you feeling about that now, brethren?
I’ve done only a few dozen weddings and seems like I came to the place where I would leave out the business about the state. I would, nonetheless, sign the state’s marriage form and duly return it to the court house.
Known to all except those holed up in a cave, sans cellphone, is the recent Supreme Court ruling that expanded, nationwide, the right of a state-recognized marriage to include same sex couples.
So, how is it that those who believe marriage has been, is, and always should be between a man and a woman would continue to serve as an agent of the government in this business of marriage? Even if the minister officiates at a wedding he deems acceptable on the basis that the couple before him is a man and a woman, should he act in the role of the state’s agent in doing so?
Some ministers have separated themselves from signing the marriage forms of the state for some time. There is a movement that asks ministers to pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage. Some religious traditions already maintain that separation.
Southern Baptists generally handle both in their churches and through their ordained clergy. Have the ceremony. Sign the license. Let the wedding photographer take a photo of the distinguished, berobed minister, affixing his John Henry to the paper. Boom. It’s done (so long as someone gets the paper back to the proper office to be recorded).
I’m just asking a question here. Why would SBC clergy who almost universally condemn the recent SCOTUS decision, even think about participating in this system. We don’t have to. The state isn’t going to compel the minister to perform a ceremony or sign any state document.
So why would we?
Tradition. Convenience to those being married. Simple one-step process, a single ceremony fixes the marriage (at least for a while) both in the “eyes of God” and “according to the laws of this state.”
Our Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage which one can sign (up to July 3rd, so says the website) but that says nothing about being an agent of the government in marrying people.
Ed Stetzer, our statistical sage, opines that more Christians will take the route of opting out of “government-sanctioned” by which I assumes he means that clergy will opt out but couples will still obtain the necessary licenses and execute them properly without the preacher’s help. Stetzer has no figures on the opt-out, the matter hasn’t been surveyed I presume, but I’d guess that very few SBC clergy have such a personal policy.
I’m not sure what is the best course for the minister. I recently learned that a lay friend was asked to perform a wedding. He sent off for some online minister credentials and did it. One would have to say that (a) it isn’t the state’s business to judge who is an authentic minister and who is not, but also (b) wholesale credentialing devalues the whole lot of us. This makes me want to at least maintain that no sham minister can perform a wedding in my church whether or not the state recognizes the novelty ordination.
One strange thing about the ministerial marriage license opt-out is the odd group of religious traditions it brings together. Protestant and Catholic. Liberal and conservative. All find reasons that this is attractive to them.
Most SBC clergy already have a hybrid system for officiating weddings. I don’t know a single pastor-colleague who doesn’t have some personal policy about divorce. Some will not perform weddings involving divorced people. Some will perform any wedding regardless of divorce. Some take each divorce case and evaluate it by his personal standards after which he tells the couple ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ on officiating. The fact that the state recognized the divorce is not relevant. Makes us sound so Roman Catholic, doesn’t it.
So, Where do my ministerial colleagues stand on this? Gripe and complain about the ‘gummit’ or the Supreme Court but business as usual?
I have performed one marriage ceremony and signed the license issued by the state. I will continue to do so until I am told that I can’t and still maintain my convictions concerning what ceremonies to perform.
The only reason not to perform the ceremonies at this point would be to stick it to the government. I am afraid they don’t need me though. So I would really be sticking it to my congregants, not the government.
Gummit? I thought it was gubmit.
Most states have laws criminalizing the solemnization of marriage apart from the civil process, but it is questionable whether states intend to prosecute marriage ceremonies performed solely as a religious observance. Weddings performed under the authority of the state confer the protections and privileges granted by the state. Conducting a wedding outside of the civil process would be inadvisable both because of the forfeiture of those protections and benefits and because it makes it easier for couples to avoid the responsibilities of marriage and the accountability of the church.
You may be phrasing this inelegantly or inaccurately, Andrew. I know of no case where a religious ceremony has been made illegal. If there is fraud or if the state’s interest in public welfare (marriage under a certain age or between close relatives, etc.). You may have to inform me if the church is not by right in this country capable of pronouncing or conferring whatever relationship status they wish in whatever manner they so choose.
I think perhaps this is the kind of thing that Andrew is talking about. I was not aware of it until I began researching marriage laws in VA when the federal judge first ruled that VA’s marriage amendment was unconstitutional.
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+20-28
Virginia’s statute (per Adam’s link): “If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500.” “Ceremony of marriage” is subject to further interpretation and I’d guess the statute is aimed at fraud. If you can find where the state stepped in to prosecute a non-civil religious ceremony, union, etc. I’d like to know. That said, it has always been part of an officiant’s responsibility to be reasonably… Read more »
Yeah, I have never heard of a case where such a thing was prosecuted. I would not be surprised, however, if that changes in the future due to ministers getting out of the business of serving as agents of the state in weddings. The homosexual movement will not tolerate that kind of solution.
I, like you, expect that this was put to into place to prevent fraud not regulate what people do in their church buildings. That doesn’t mean it won’t be used that way in the future though.
That’s why I said, “…it is questionable whether states intend to prosecute marriage ceremonies performed solely as a religious observance.” Theoretically, they could prosecute a minister for officiating a marriage ceremony even if it was meant as solely a religious observance. I was researching this a couple years ago because the issue came up in our church regarding solemnizing marriages for immigrants without legal residency who were thus unable to secure a marriage license because they didn’t have proper identification.
Virginia is kind of a law unto itself in terms of ministers and weddings. In order to legally officiate at a wedding there you have to register with the clerk of the court, providing your certificate of ordination and (it seems like) one other document. Once so registered, you can perform one anywhere in the state, as long as you live, even if you move, and I think is the only state in the U.S. with such a requirement. I believe this is a vestige of the Virginia colonial system, when ministers and churches had to be sanctioned and licensed… Read more »
Plodder, I have one pastor friend who has been ahead of the curve on this matter. He has led his church to stipulate in their by-laws his church will perform and host only a religious wedding ceremony. All couples must be married by a state official before coming to his church for the religious ceremony.
That was the situation where we served as missionaries in Argentina as well. I suspect that it’s true in many other parts of the world. The couple would have a separate civil service with witnesses before a civil magistrate, and then I (and other colleagues who performed weddings for the churches we served) would officiate the religious ceremony at the church. I think that system in many ways honors Baptists’ historic commitment to the separation of church and state and focuses the religious ceremony on the covenant aspect of marriage.
Requiring a state marriage prior to the Church marriage seems to be self-defeating… 😕
When I do weddings I don’t include that statement. I usually say something like, “as the pastor of this church I now pronounce you…” With the license and what the legal recognition means in terms of different benefits, I have no issue signing them even at the present. It’s a part of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2– we’re submitting to a law of the government that doesn’t conflict with God’s word. After all, God says a lot about the moral and relational side of marriage, and nothing about the practical side of ceremonies. Now if the state came in… Read more »
Since I wrote this, I have learned that there are proposals being discussed here in Georgia to protect probate court judges (issuers of marriage licenses) from having to issue same sex couples a license if the judge so objects to doing so. One idea would be to let any legit minister or other official issue the license, a standard form. Bad idea but one of many that will arise as the religious liberty aspect of SSM dominates the legal and public debate.
Being a clear testimony in the public arena is not all bad. Helping a young couple with the proper paperwork to be recognized by their local government, at this juncture has not changed, and is still helpful in most cases. Having a man and woman demonstrate the created order in matrimony never will be a lost art whether in the state or the body of Christ. Christians always have responsibility within the later. If the state determines they don’t like Christians and shuns God’s norms….so be it. “Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she… Read more »
Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, the only “holy” matrimony is the one God instituted. Civil marriage has been expanded by the state, but only holy matrimonies between man and woman are sanctioned by God. SCOTUS redefined what they had not defined nor designed. I suspect to see churches scrambling to amend their church by-laws to provide a shelter for performing “religious” marriages only; but “Christian” gay couples will challenge this. Sad days in America and getting sadder by the day. The boundaries are being removed; evil is being legalized.
I have an article on this in the latest edition of Light magazine from the ERLC. Here’s a link http://issuu.com/erlcsbc/docs/light_magazine_-_summer_2015_-_web/11?e=17944236/13393533.
It’s a point-counterpoint article. Another guy makes William’s case. I make the case for continuing to sign marriage licenses.
good cogent arguments….thanks!
I didn’t position myself against signing licenses. I did sign them. Would still do today, though I prefer funerals to weddings. Less stress. This is just something we never used to think about as clergy. I don’t think your reasons (in the link) are compelling but do provide a reasonable basis for signing. If my minister refused to sign, I would think him a bit of an oddball but would respect his reasoning. The 510(c)(3) you use as an example is good although you don’t make the most salient point about it. Those preachers who endorse a political candidate do… Read more »
I should’ve read more carefully. I see now that you didn’t take a position. But, I wasn’t taking a swipe at you even if you had. I have respect for both positions, although I’m convinced by the position I articulated.
I agree that the case for signing doesn’t knock the ball out of the park. I think it wins, but only with a ground-rule double RBI. 🙂
The other side just has a weak, lackluster effort. Like the Yankees.
At this point, American marriage is a social contract granting the spouses rights that unmarried people do not enjoy.
As long as Christians want those rights, they can opt for American marriage.
In the future, those who value God’s words regarding marriage can clarify the blessings that faithful spouses can enjoy through believing what God says.
A secular government never was ordained by God to speak for Him.
Perhaps American Christians should divorce themselves from equating the Kingdom of God and American patriotism. They are far apart.
“Perhaps American Christians should divorce themselves from equating the Kingdom of God and American patriotism. They are far apart.”
I hear what you are saying Brother Corbaley. Through the course of history, many American Christian patriots have fought to protect what they valued as Kingdom principles operating in our government. Sadly, the distance between both is widening. The new rebel flag lit up the White House last week.
“Perhaps American Christians should divorce themselves from equating the Kingdom of God and American patriotism. They are far apart.”
Timely comment. Either last Sunday or this Sunday is the one that many SBC churches kick Jesus out of church and celebrate Uncle Sam.
Thanks, William.
Your words “agent of the state” are excellent! Those words express reality. I find no Biblical basis for a minister of the gospel to ‘officiate’ a marriage.
Thanks also for urging the readers of SBC Voices to rethink our American cultural traditions.
“””Perhaps American Christians should divorce themselves from equating the Kingdom of God and American patriotism. “””” I don’t see where this is an issue of “American patriotism.” As a bona fide American patriot, having raised my hand and given the U.S. a blank check of my life, I feel I can justifiably live my life in such a way that represents my dual citizenship without disparaging either. To be an American patriot does not mean one must subscribe to the American civil religion. Some do, of course, but it is not a requirement. Please allow me to follow the Biblical… Read more »
OK Jack, I know you well enough that “dual citizenship” does not mean “equal allegiance” to you. My actual words were ““Perhaps American Christians should divorce themselves from equating the Kingdom of God and American patriotism. They are far apart.” The key point is that they are so far apart that there is no favorable comparison. There is a sense in which the Fourth of July is a celebration of the past, not the present. I have no desire to rain on any parade, or to avoid any important point. It might be safer for you to just not read… Read more »
OK. As long as I can listen to John Phillip Souza songs and eat watermelon on the 4th while wearing my “Bottom Gun” submariner’s hat, I’ll be OK 🙂
Jack, Souza is one of histories great artists! His music is inspiring. Have a great week.
It wouldn’t surprise me if polygamy is legal, next. i’d imagine that’s coming soon. Then, some false Pastor will be saying, “Bubba, do you take this woman, and this other woman, and also that woman standing, over there, to all be your lawfully wedded wives?” Also, it wouldn’t surprise me, one bit, if we’ll see people marrying their dogs and cats, at some point, down the road. Then, some crazy, liberal officiant will say, “Larry, do you take Fido to be your lawfully wedded spouse?” Or, “Monroe, do you take Fifi the cat to be your lawfully wedded spouse? To… Read more »
I cannot imagine why polygamy should be illegal if SS marriage is legal. It seems inevitable.
Due process and equal protection ramifications should make our heads spin. Regarding polygamy, the dissenting justices actually argued that it might create a rationale for a right to polygamy. In that new normal, “Christian” polygamist-wannabees would also seek religious justification by quoting “the greatest is love.” We already have “Christian” LBGT folks desiring the church to bless their holy matrimony, since the state did. The whole mess reminds me of an old Truth song “Living Life Upside Down.” Some of those lyrics: “You say we’ve risen to a new age of light You’re telling me what used to be wrong… Read more »
I believe for now the SCOTUS has prevented this by defining marriage between any two persons. So that rules out polygamy or marrying your pet parakeet, etc. This one has kind of become a tired old argument from religious circles, but I do admit, if the SCOTUS can redefine marriage once, who’s to say they cannot do it again in the future?
Randy
Randy,
That’s what I meant….in the future. Unless the Lord brings a Great Awakening, I can see things like that happening in the future. And really, just about anything else.
David
David, it seems to me that if the law of the land is what 5 Americans (and I use that term loosely) say it is, then I don’t see how anything can be ruled out.
I now pronounce you, “Fido and Fido’s Partner” — or, “Partners.”
Of course this is absurd. But, wouldn’t my grandparents have considered the idea of two men getting “legally” married, absurd?
Your grandparents??
Just 20 years ago virtually everyone thought the idea of SSM was absurd.
As recently as 35 years ago I don’t think any municipality in the world endorsed same-sex marriage as a matter of practice or law.
More specifically to American SSM supporting liberals – our Rainbow light show donning President, our most recent former Secretary of State and most other elected/campaining Democrats – just a few years ago were on record as being opposed to same-sex marriage.
35 years ago?
Try 14. Netherlands passed the first same-sex marriage legalization. It went into effect in 2001.
Bart, do you know of any Christian who has written on the effects upon society that decision has made in the Netherlands over the last 14 years.
Adam, while this is not exactly what you asked for, it is close. https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2013/march02
It turns to be an “easy Google.” negative effects of same sex marriage” will get it. You may want to add a country.
Wow! I guess I must have “rounded” up the years a bit.
I guess I have been in this battle (San Francisco AIDS debates in the early 80’s) I had not realized how far we have fallen so fast.
Talk about a slippery slope. This has been a greased cliff.
Funny you should raise this. I recently wrote on Facebook: Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that states must allow Sodomites to “marry” (and I use quotes because the state actually has no power to define marriage, only God can do that. The state can define a civil domestic partnership contract. In fact, it was a horrible mistake for churches and synagogues to permit the state usurping of marriage in the first place) I do not want to be part of such a state created abomination. My “marriage license” issued by the state of New Jersey is not what… Read more »
My wife was the Matron of Honor when the lady who facilitates our trips to Venezuela got married. I don’t know if it’s because Venezuela doesn’t license ministers or that ministers have opted out of licensing, but it’s become tradition for the ceremony to be a two-day event: one day at the church and another day at the civil authority.
William,
Instead of,
“…by the authority vested in me as a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws of this state…”
Perhaps it should be,
“…by the authority vested in me as a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws of five judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America…”
David R. Brumbelow
I’ve only performed a few weddings, but I don’t say anything about authority, just pronounce them husband and wife. I don’t see anything in the bible that gives a person “authority” to declare someone married. I’m just there to keep things moving along without descending into chaos.
Bill, I see your point and agree that the Bible says nothing about a minister specifically having authority to solemnize a marriage (though there are a few Scriptures talking about binding on earth, etc.( But, there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a minister being there at all–for chaos control or anything else. So, if one has no authority to solemnize, he has no authority to be there at all. Your argument could be used to say that church should have nothing to do with marriage. That seems an odd, and dangerous, argument to make–or to open… Read more »
Jack,
You say, above, “Your argument could be used to say that church should have nothing to do with marriage.”
I think we have two very distinct kinds of marriage. There is God’s ideal of marriage; and the United States ideal of marriage. And they are very unlike.
Perhaps the church should have nothing to do with the United States ideal of marriage.
Other than social rights; what advantages does the United States ideal of marriage offer?
Jack: Arguing that the church should be involved in weddings is certainly an argument from silence.
I didn’t say I had authority to be at the wedding. I performed it because I was invited to do so.
There’s nothing wrong with the way we do weddings, but let’s not pretend this is prescribed in scripture. It is pure tradition, nothing more.
Bill, I’ll have to agree with you . . . and then almost disagree. I think history–Jewish history especially–considering the rites that have been preserved, indicate marriage has always, or at least often, been connected with religion and religious leaders. Who would have ever thought we would actually one day even discuss such an issue? By the way, the same could be said for funerals. In fact, at nearly every wedding and funeral I have done I have pointed out that no where in Scripture is there a mandate for a preacher to conduct such services. Bill, your point is… Read more »
I would like to see some opinions on what constitutes a marriage, in God’s eyes. Clearly it can’t be the blessing of the state, and as far as I know people were getting married before the dominant religion started playing a role in it. So what constitutes “biblical” marriage? Can a make and a woman swear their fidelity to each other and before God, and be biblically married even if they are not legally married? We have, have we not, always assumed if a couple was living together without being legally married (recognized by the state) that they were living… Read more »
Bill Mac, I would say some kind of public declaration of the two promising to be husband and wife would constitute a marriage. I don’t think anyone needs the license from the govt. in order to be “officially” married. But, I do think the couple needs to make a public declaration of their commitment to each other, in order to be joined together by God. I mean, what license did Adam and Eve sign? What about a couple stranded on a deserted island? Could they get married….out there…with no one, but them and God? I think some kind of commitment… Read more »
David: I agree. Nothing wrong with being married in the church, but I don’t see any biblical mandate for the church to perform marriages. I think what we’re going to see here is a separation of legal and religious marriage now, which perhaps isn’t a bad thing. While I disagree with the recent ruling, I have no fear of being forced to perform SS weddings.
It seems to me that the only true advantage of an official (licensed by the state) marriage comes if divorce occurs. There are legal responsibilities that need to be fulfilled.
The major thing that seems to set up a “common law” marriage is to say that you are married. From what I have read, if you do that you are legally married–and you incur the responsibilities. I would expect that “married, filing jointly” on a tax return would be quite adequate. And “married, filing separately” would probably do it.
I actually wrote a position paper on it. I’ll see if I can’t upload it somewhere and share the link.
In the eyes of God, what “exactly” qualifies as a valid marriage? Is it the legal ceremony? Is it simply a public ceremony? Is it simply a public announcement? I’ve heard of older couples having a religious ceremony to marry in the eyes of God, yet not a legal one and not informing the government. So, according to them they were married in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the government. I’ve heard this was to gain some advantage, or avoid some disadvantage, concerning taxes, social security, medicare, etc. In other words, they wanted to be… Read more »
Here’s the link to my paper: https://sbcvoices.com/?attachment_id=27991 By the Power Vested in Me: A Defense of the Validity of Marriage apart from State Recognition What constitutes a valid marriage? Many Christians take for granted that couples should seek and obtain a civil marriage, but some governments recognize “marriages” that the Bible expressly prohibits, and others may prohibit marriages that the Bible condones. After considering arguments in favor of the necessity of obtaining civil recognition in order to have a valid marriage, I will argue that marriage, because it was instituted by God at creation, exists independently of the state and… Read more »
David, I hope you don’t mind, I would like to comment on what you said. Paul teaches in Corinthians, a valid marriage is when two Christians marry, not the lost marrying one another. Although, a married couple who is lost then get’s saved, their marriage becomes valid in the eyes of God. David, a lost married couple will go to hell as quick as a married gay couple. In biblical times the elders or those who had authority kept records of who married who. So, if a man and woman loves one another and want to marry, they have to… Read more »
Jess, I choose to be amused by you rather than frustrated. You never disappoint.
Adam,
I take it you disagree with something I said.
Jess,
I don’t mind at all.
We may not agree on all things,
but I appreciate your viewpoint.
David R. Brumbelow
“In biblical times the elders or those who had authority kept records of who married who.” Are you referring to Old Testament or New? If New, is there a specific reference for this, or is it speculation? I have actually wondered when the church got involved in weddings, and have never found a definitive answer to it.
John
John Fariss,
I don’t have time to hunt it up right now. We know Josephus told about Herod marrying. Moses, said to give the woman a writing of divorce. With just these two items mentioned, there has to be a document of a marriage that was kept on record. We read about someone being a son of someone who married someone. All these together proves there was a record kept of a marriage.
Jess,
It seems that whenever I read a post of yours, I can’t help but get a whiff of KJVOnlyism.
What’s the point? This only leads to rancor, anger, and a huge demonstration of self-righteousness.
I can’t speak for Dave., but I have never seen this argument go anywhere that is fruitful in Christian exchanges.
Consider making your point by leaving out the KJVO stuff. It’s not helpful.
The KJV is a perfect translation as long as you accept it was based to some significant extent on the Vulgate and also seems to strongly advocate that a human king is a necessary intermediary in human affairs…
I’m so old I’m just sticking with the original autographs of the N.T. and my copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I saw them first but I’ll be quite content to print them for you.
When I was at SWBTS we used a hammer and chisel writing Hebrew!!!
Amen!
Chief Katie,
When I look up words in the KJV sometimes there are several meanings to these words. If the words are already defined for me I have no idea if it’s true or not. I want to be the judge of the correct usage of a word. Not someone else. This is why I am a KJV only guy. I will never change.
That makes no sense at all. You admit that words have several meanings, and yet you insist on only the ones that King James authorized. I greatly appreciate the KJV, but realize that King James’ insistence on preserving the doctrine of the Church of England corrupted the view of baptism. The KJV doesn’t even translate the word because it have meant only baptism by immersion would be proper. King James didn’t believe that so he forced the translators to not translate the word. So, you think that is a good thing? As I said, I use the KJV in my… Read more »
Jack,
I have nothing against you using a watered down version of the bible. Have at it, you can use a comic book if you want. To me there is no difference between a comic book and a watered down version of the bible.
I use the bible I want, and you can use whatever.
The post is not about bibles, we should stick to the post.
” ‘Love is patient.’ The KJV says, ‘Charity suffereth long.’ If you want to know why I do not use the KJV, here is as good of a reason as any. Because if we start with ‘Charity suffereth long’ we have to spend five minutes explaining the ‘Charity suffereth long’ means ‘Love is patient.’ ”
-Alistair Begg
That is absolute nonsense. The KJV was written for people 400 years ago across an ocean based off of an inferior manuscript tradition to what exists now. Absolute nonsense. If contextualization deosn’t matter at all, then just read to your people from the original Greek so as not to “water it down.”
David,
The KJV is the number one selling bible in the world.
Scholars use it all over the world. It’s a no nonsense bible. You can use what you want, too. No complaints from me.
Jess, have you ever been “all over the world?”
Much of the world does not speak English, KJV, or otherwise–at least not in the countries I’ve been in.
Raise your hand if you think Jess actually uses a “watered down” translation of the original King James version.
😉
Are you this kind of KJV only guy,
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-13-4/
If not – you’re using a “watered down modernized version”, too.
Just saying.
Tarheel,
You have me pegged.
Tarheel,
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Jess,
Do you always use and always preach from the 1611 or not? If not – you’re using a modernized version – and not the “real” King Jimmy – it’s been updated serveral times has it not?
Jess, go to Biblegateway.com and look up Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and 1 Tim. 9-11 in the NLT/New Living Translation – nothing watered down, those verses are crystal clear Bible truth. Whether you read from KJV, another translation, or the original languages, just those few verses teach, without question, the wrongness and eternal consequences of homosexual practice.
Stephen,
I’ll just stick with my KJV.
I think it is time for ministers to stop performing wedding ceremonies as agents of the state. While living overseas, the only “legal” weddings had to be conducted by a government official. Christian couples would schedule their wedding on Friday and then have a Christian wedding on Saturday. At first I did not like this idea. However, with the redefinition of marriage, I am now in favor of this idea. I think it would give ministers the opportunity to officiate ceremonies between two committed Christians. My rationale being who would want a second ceremony in a church other than committed… Read more »
At my church, we knew this was going to happen, as I’m sure everyone here also did. We changed our by-laws and now we only performs weddings for church members. We will lose revenue, but we gain the peace of knowing we are making every effort to honor God.
In His Grace…………..
Chief Katie – your church makes money from weddings? We’ve been doing something wrong!
Of course. People are beating down the door to use our sanctuary. LOL. My Pastor is not going to marry anyone he does not believe should enter into marriage in the Biblical model. No unequal yolking (is that a word) goin’ on here. But no more. Now we will only marry members.
Some churches charge over $1000.00 for the use of church facilities. You have to use one of their ministers, the organist has to get paid, etc.
Check out this one:
http://www.huguenot-church.org/index.html
Chief, that is the same view I’ve taken. I would marry a young couple if one of the spouses was not a member of my church but was a member of a sister church or church of like faith and order. I’m thinking of one of our college students who meets his future wife (or her future husband) at college. I did get out of the wedding chapel business. PS–My son that you prayed for a couple years ago is now an FC2 on the USS Hopper (he’s out to sea right now). He loves firing the Big 5″. He… Read more »
Adam Blosser,
KJV, Charity suffereth long. You said love is patient. I can take the three words from the KJV and preach a 45 minute sermon any day. I would tell the meaning of charity, and start from there, There is suffering in love, suffering of Christ, suffering of believers because love suffereth. Charity is made to last. Love is for the duration, it’s long. To bear up under. Anyway you get the gist.
Be patient, That’s watered down. See what I’m talking about?
A 45 minute sermon on three words isn’t necessarily “preaching.” It may just be a religious filibuster.
Jack,
I’m sure you are correct.
You can’t be an agent of the state if the state doesn’t issue a marriage license in the first place. Just perform the Christian marriage, pronounce them husband and wife and declare that concerning those God has joined together, “let no man put asunder.” This accomplishes biblical marriage AND paperwork reduction while reducing government involvement in our lives.
http://bit.ly/1CJ4uMC
Yeah, I saw that, Rick. Some of the issuing officials in your state and in Mississippi are refusing to issue marriage licenses (some to same sex couples, some to any couple). This has a whiff of “standing at the schoolhouse door,” “segregation now…forever” of George Wallace. Maybe the courts will accommodate elected public officials but I doubt it. If you are elected as the state official who issues marriage licenses and a lawful license is one for same sex, then don’t run for that office if you object to some potential licensees. What’s the difference between your probate judge who… Read more »
Who is going to challenge? He’s not issuing licenses for *any* definition of marriage, so it’s not discriminating against same sex couples. It personally would not bother me if neither of my sons, someday, has a state issued piece of paper to “prove” they got married. That’s what all those photographs are for!
Rick Patrick,
Where I’m from, marriage without a license is shacking up. The bible teaches this also. Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well? You have had five husbands, the one you are with now is not your husband.
What you are talking about, is total nonsense.
Jess,
I agree they should be MARRIED. I disagree that the state issued license is what makes them so. Our society already allows for common-law marriage, in which people are considered legally married without having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage.
However, in this case, the marriage would be registered as a religious ceremony, just like a baptism. We give certificates for those, right? The state does not have anything to do with it.
Rick,
Kentucky doesn’t have a common law marriage. I don’t know how many other states that don’t.
Rick,
Also there is the Social Security issue and inheritance issues.
Your church marriage certificate would be accepted by the state, presumably recorded. States still have laws on marriage (ages, close relationships, perhaps others) which would require someone to either verify or extract a sworn statement for. If you do this as clergy then you are still an agent of the state.
There is already a proposal being floated around in GA on this stuff and we can count on many of these solutions to be wose than the problem.
Here’s a county officer who resigned rather than issue lawful marriage micenses to same sex couples:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/exclusive.county.clerk.resigns.instead.of.issuing.gay.marriage.licenses/49193.htm
Oddly, the lady who resigned was praised as a “brother in christ” by her pastor.
I suspect that government officials who flatly refuse to do lawful duties will find resignation is the only sensible route.
I like that there are different approaches Christians can use to protest Anthony Kennedy’s decision while still remaining within the law. The Alabama law says “may” not “must” which means marriage licenses are an optional duty of the county probate judge. I applaud those opting out.
I know Roe v. Wade was 7-2 in 1973, but this Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was merely 5-4. This is one I could see being overturned one day. I would not be too quick to resign a position.
It’ll never be overturned – that’d create chaos with the ones already entered into this fallacious union. It’s here to stay I’m afraid.
Presumably, in the event this ruling is ever overturned, such marriages would simply be “grandfathered.” No chaos. Just angry and sad homosexuals instead of angry and sad Christians. One man, Anthony Kennedy, delivered this ruling. I think it is more tenuous than it seems right now with all of the rainbow celebrations.
I think you are overly casual about what it means to give rights and liberty to citizens in this country as well as being blithely dismissive of the status quo ante, namely: most Americans supported gay marriage, most state had already enacted in some fashion legalization.
It is convenient to place the decision on Kennedy’s shoulders, especially since he was the “swing vote” and wrote the majority opinion, but it neglects the fact that there were 4 other justices who voted in the same way in order for there to be a majority. 1 against 4 doesn’t win, but 5 against 4 does. The American people got exactly what they wanted with this decision. Now the vast majority of my friends on social media do not support this decision. But there are enough who would have once been considered conservative evangelicals who have supported the decision… Read more »
I don’t buy the assertion that most Americans support SSM – nor do I agree with the assertion that most states have legalized it – actually the courts legalized it in most states it was only a handful of states – maybe 10?- who by duly legislative action within their state redefined marriage to include same sex couples. it is completely the case that whenever this was put up for a popular vote – even in California of all places – the traditional definition of marriage was upheld – I think the polls that seem to indicate Americans vastly “supporting”… Read more »
I would say that instead many have gotten tired or are Leary of of being labeled bigots and so in a pole they answer the way they’re “supposed to answer” – but The voting booth has consistently told a different story and referendums.
I also think that sadly many evangelical Americans are falling into the trap of thinking that if we are loving enough, tolerant enough, winsome enough, gentle enough that people will flock to the Gospel in the church – that has never been the case and can end up being a complete rejection of gospel proclamation.
Last time I checked 17 states plus Washington DC and legalize same-sex marriage is. While it is true the majority of Americans may be in favor of same-sex marriage it is not true that the majority of states are in favor of same-sex marriage. One reason why states right’s is such an important issue is it keeps the highly populated areas from dictating to the rest of the country what policy is going to be.
* different story in referendums.
*flock to be gospel and the church.
Sorry for typos but Siri doesn’t recognize southern draw and I’m having to use her this morning.
The four Democrat appointees of Clinton and Obama voted for it. The four Republican appointees of Reagan, Bush and Bush voted against it.
This was the exact same split in the Hobby Lobby Case last year that “our side” won. I think both 5-4 decisions are rather tenuous. In both cases, Kennedy—yes, a Reagan appointee—was the “swing” vote. This was very close.
There are no evangelical Christians on this Supreme Court. Religious affiliation indicates 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish. The breakdown on the vote, besides Republican vs. Democrat and conservative vs. liberal, is that all of the Jewish professors and two Catholics cast their vote against the other Catholics. I’m not saying anything is significant here, just presenting the stats. However, what is significant is that the voices of evangelical Christians are being silenced in various corners of America.
Also, according to Ted Cruz, they all have degrees from Harvard and Yale. I think each Power Five Conference should have at least one Supreme Court Justice! The SEC probably will claim that it deserves two!
“””I am not saying that the tide of public opinion can never change back the other way,”””” I am not an expert on history but I am pretty sure that no society once having fully embraced homosexuality has ever survived. I’m thinking of Sodom, or course, but also Rome and in our modern day, Germany. Many people are not aware of the homosexuality that was rampant in Hitler’s forces, and in Hitler’s own life. I am not saying that homosexuality is the only “cause” for the decay of an empire. In fact, it may not be a cause at all.… Read more »