Brothers: Charles Scott has nailed this question. Research the marriage license, and you will find that a "license is a permission to do what would otherwise be illegal." By the license the state creates for the "incompetent" couple a type of juridical entity, a sort of corporation, the "marriage." Because the state creates that entity, the state also has a right to control the entity, and to control the fruit of the entity, the children. That surely is the nexus of jurisdiction for compulsory public education. Moreover, the state's granting marriage licenses is also the cause of high divorce rates. The state gains jurisdiction over marriage ONLY because people apply for and get that license. Without the license, the state has no jurisdiction over the marriage. Of course, marriage is an inalienable common law right, and those who are "competent" can marry without the state's permission, within the church's jurisdiction. Once Christian people stop asking the state for permission to do what they are already free to do, in other words, stop entering into state marriages, then the whole homosexual marriage issue slides into the sea. It appears in all its innate ridiculousness. Yours in the bonds of Christ, Franklin Sanders Christ our Hope R.E. Mission Westpoint, Tennessee From: faithandlife-digest-return-12467-moneychanger=compuserve.com@... [mailto:faithandlife-digest-return-12467-moneychanger=compuserve.com@associa te.com] On Behalf Of faithandlife-digest-help@... Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:25 AM To: faithandlife@... Subject: faithandlife Digest 22 May 2006 14:24:40 -0000 Issue 1003 faithandlife Digest 22 May 2006 14:24:40 -0000 Issue 1003 Topics (messages 12467 through 12467): U.S. Senate To Vote On Homosexual Marriage June 6 (2) 12467 by: charles scott Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: faithandlife-digest-subscribe@... To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: faithandlife-digest-unsubscribe@... To post to the list, e-mail: faithandlife@... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:24:33 -0700 (PDT) To: faithandlife@... From: charles scott <crscottblu@...> Subject: U.S. Senate To Vote On Homosexual Marriage June 6 (2) Message-ID: <20060522142433.42978.qmail@...> Brothers+ I agree, separation of Church and State does serve us well in this situation. The nature of my question was a little different than the current bru-ha-ha rippling across the various denominations. I'm simply asking, why should we participate at all as representatives of the state? Our stance would be clearer if persons married in the bonds of Christ had the church witness their covenant with one another and God, and then went to the local Judge or JP for the civil legalities. If we have nothing to do with the state in this regard, the world at large would not expect us to abide by the state's definitions of persons fit for marriage and thus we would not be participants in the debate. In that scenario we couldn't be damned by those not of our flock for not doing some odd-couplings since we don't do "legal" marriages. The Church would be taken out of the possibility of having "marrying Sams." Charles+ Church of the Good Shepherd, Anglican --- "The Rev GDVWiebe SSC.,PhD" <gdvw@...> wrote: > > Charles and JAD, > > This matter hasd alreadybeen settled in Canada. > There civil unions/ same > sex marriage is on the books but the Church has been specifically > EXCLUDED from participation unless they so desire. > here the erroneous > but commonly believed 'separation of Church and State' will serve the > Church well. I do not expect any kind of difficulty. > Further I doubt the > thing will pass the 2/3 needed to move it forward in the > constitutional process. This is all electioneering to 'energise' > the rightwing neocon > Fundamentalist 'base'. for November. Ascension tide blessings. GDVW+ > > But if the law of the land allows for homosexual > marriage, are we going to > > be able to refuse to marry someone because of that > reason ? Will the > > State > > say, you are only acting in a civil way and it is > only for record keeping > > ? > > If we refuse will we be subject to harassment if > not charges ? I am not > > trying to be an alarmist here, I just would like > some questions answered. > > > > Fr. David + > > St. Luke's Port Orange, Fl. > > >\ ------------------------------ End of faithandlife Digest ***********************************