Fr. Wiebe+ Thank you for the response and the review of how marriages are done in other places and were done in other times. It seems to me that 2 marriage cermonies, while it might be a minor inconvenience for the faithful, would send a clear message as to how Christians view marriage. Let the state and marrying sams with their wedding chapels do what they will, the church doesn't have to be a party to the madness. Charles+ Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis --- "The Rev GDVWiebe SSC.,PhD" <gdvw@...> wrote: > > Brothers+ > > In most of the world (as > here) there are > defacto if not dejure 2 marriage services. One > is the Registry City Hall one and the other is > the ecclesiastical blessing of vows. > > > In a place where there is no > State Church (unlike Scandinavia or the UK) we > are stuck with the State acting as the > effective guardian of records with all this > implies. > > Your > parishioner has an interesting point. > > > 300 yrs ago when we > comprised 30% of the population in the 13 > colonies (and the majority in some) was one > thing. > > Today > when we are maybe 700,000 (Including ECUSA and > the 53 Continuing jurisdictions) active adults > quite another. > > For > example,I have friends in San Francisco who are > 'gay' who want the protection of same > sex/registered cohabitation (as they call it in > Iceland-I wonder how long the words are) but > are not interestedi n sacramental marriage > perse . > > The > Senate should spend its time on other more > pressing issues, like universal health care, > getting out of Iraq and protecting what is left > of our civil rights/liberties. > > > The 'anti gay marriage' thing is a non > starter and like the ERA will waste billions of > dollars and hours of time and in the end in > fact achieve or accomplish nothing but provide > grist for the mills of people like Wildemon > Et.Al. > > Better > to let sleeping dogs lie. Blessings. GDVW+ > > In a recent conversation an elderly, alert, devout > > churchman was arguing that there seems little > reason > > why clergy would follow the state's rules in > regard to > > marriage. He was arguing that the Church should > > witness marriage covenants, but that we have > little in > > common with the state in this regard and should > > consider whether we really want to be agents of > the > > state. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Charles+ > > > > --- "bishopray.anglican@..." > > <bishopray.anglican@...> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >> : From: "AFA ActionAlert" <afapetition@...> > >> To: Rita Laracuente <ritalaracuente@...> > >> Subject: U.S. Senate To Vote On Homosexual > Marriage > >> June 6 > >> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:00:00 -0500 > >> > >> Donald E. Wildmon > >> Founder and Chairman > >> May 15, 2006U.S. Senate To Vote On Homosexual > >> Marriage June 6The most important vote in the > Senate > >> this year! The future of our children is at > >> stake.<snip> > > the U.S. Senate will vote on the constitutional > > amendment defining marriage as the union of one > man > > and one woman. > >> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > Catholic Financial Services > Send and Receive all online Payments And Donations > No Merchant Account Required! > https://www.catholicfs.org/ > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > >