[SampleMan]

How did he respond?

I think it struck him as a unique idea. He thought about it and noted that the state wouldn't recognize Church weddings. I responded that such recognition was rarely beneficial anyway, as the state puts a penalty on marriage.

He then cocked his head in thought again and stated that if the State did invent a new non-Christian definition, that he thought that the Church should indeed start to marry people without a state license.

[gidget7]

For a lot of people, the fewer involvements with the state the better. Better, much better, to be married in the eyes of God than the state. But it should also be solely called Holy Matrimony. If a couple wants the state civil license, they can go to a JP or a judge, in addition.

It was pointed out to me, that if they did marry people without the state license, unitarian churches and Episcopal churches would marry gays. But they have been for years. Those are just not recognized by states.