Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Oldpuppymax

The Church must stop providing state marriages. They don’t mean a thing except to the state.

The Church should continue to offer the sacrament of matrimony. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.


5 posted on 06/29/2015 8:54:41 AM PDT by agere_contra (Hamas has dug miles of tunnels - but no bomb-shelters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: agere_contra

Marriage licenses became mandatory in 1639, in Massachusetts.

From THE COLONIAL FAMILY IN AMERICA “While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract. Consequently, marriage was a function of the magistrates more than the clergy.”

From LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO MARRIAGE LAW Iowa.gov “They (Puritans founders of Massachusetts) believed that marriage was not a religious ceremony but a civil contract. They required that this covenant must be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) before a magistrate, and not a minister. They also insisted that if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken, then the union could be ended by divorce. These attitudes became the basis of regional marriage customs throughout New England.”


19 posted on 06/29/2015 9:10:51 AM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: agere_contra
The Church should continue to offer the sacrament of matrimony. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Yep. Only offer one type of marriage according to what the church does - teach and follow the Bible. The only type of marriage they offer is between a man and a woman. They can't do anything else. They don't understand nor need to know about the politically correct doctrines of demons. That's not the product they offer. There are other institutions out there that can do it. Isn't this country's diversity great?
If anyone wants something else, I'm sure there are other places they can go. Diversity and the freedom to be diverse is a good thing, right? Who are these haters who think they can tell other people in the church community how they should live? Or what their version of love should be? Or what books they can read and/or follow?

Who are these hate filled, intolerant, noninclusive bigots who are denying the church their freedom to pursue their lifestyle choice, anyway?
I don't know how these haters can look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe they just need some time for self-refection.

34 posted on 06/29/2015 9:38:53 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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