Which is how I feel, and its been the case factually ever since we stopped putting people in jail for adultery and homosexuality. It is not illegal for a man to live in the same house and have sex with seven women, so is polygamy really illegal, same for homosexuals, etc. Get a state license simply adds up to paying a higher tax rate.
What heterosexuals should do if they really want to protest, is to cease apply for a state marriage license and just get married in the church. That is a refusal to acknowledge the state's right to define marriage.
If you don't think that is enough, let me ask you this: Would you be married if the state refused to give you a license, but you got married in the church without it?
Yes you would be. In most states all you need to do is live as man and wife. Meaning commingling of funds, present yourselves as married to neighbors and on utilities and credit apps.
Common Law.
Gays would have to have some sort of additional documentation. Power of Attorneys or whatever. Same effect.
I think you and others fail to see that by arguing whether or not the govt has something to do with marriage is silly. It does have something to do with marriage. This whole homosexual marriage thing is totally a situation of backwards politics and reasoning. The argument isn’t about marriage it is about an effort to shape the culture towards sexual liberalism and take what is obvious abnormal behavior and make it mainstream.
One more thing. When I’ve gotten married, the priest/rabbi wanted to see the license. However when we “renewed” our vows, we had an identical service and they did not require a license to perform the service.
“What heterosexuals should do if they really want to protest, is to cease apply for a state marriage license and just get married in the church. That is a refusal to acknowledge the state’s right to define marriage.”
Bingo! I’m getting married shortly and this is in my mind to do.
“Would you be married if the state refused to give you a license, but you got married in the church without it?”
My sweetie & I have lived together since ‘97. He’d been married 4 times before; I never have. I’ve always assumed we would be treated as ‘common law’ husband & wife if any issue ever came up. We have therefore avoided the license & the penalty with the same result before the law.
I think the judge’s ruling was wrong, simply because we’ve limited what comprises marriage before, when Mormons were prohibited from taking multiple wives. Why should things change now? I do have gay friends who want to be married, but a civil union or a domestic partnership agreement should be more than sufficient these days. And even they admit that gay relationships are very tenuous. Most of their friends have not been able to sustain a long-term relationship. Just more work for divorce lawyers, if you ask me.
Exactly where Beck was going if the bloviator had let him get a word in edgewise.
You made some really good points. Shucks we could even go back to jumping the broomstick, but what ever then, would lawyers find to do.