[Thunder90]

All they need to do is take the power of civil unions away from religious institutions. The religious institution can still “marry” people under their religion and hold the ceremony, but the license would be signed at the courthouse by a judge or notary public.

This would protect churches from being forced to do gay or other marriages that they do not want, and would have a surprising side benefit of getting the Freedom from Religion Foundation out of the issue.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

No. This will have to do with hiring and also in the case of schools, student rules and acceptance.

Look what king zero tried to do to Hobby Lobby and other Christian businesses just over the abortion issue. He is cut-throat. His representative already said tax-exempt status would be an issue. The court liberals did not care. The framework has been set.

Liberals are evil.

[demshateGod]

Maybe, if the plan wasn’t to punish churches in America all along.

[Straight Vermonter]

All they need to do is take the power of civil unions away from religious institutions. The religious institution can still “marry” people under their religion and hold the ceremony, but the license would be signed at the courthouse by a judge or notary public.

Serious question, why do the second part? I mean what benefit comes to my family by my "legal" marriage?

If I were doing it over again I would ask the priest to do a sacramental only marriage.

[MHGinTN]

All just distractions. The Real issue is that the subPreme Court has gone outside of the Constitution and relegated to the Federal Ghoul authority that was reserved tot he states under The Constitution. The end of America as a Constitutional Republic came at the issue of legitimizing sexual degenerates, done by a count of at least two sexual degenerates and possibly a third, and an old dead soul catholic named Kennedy.

[impactplayer]

Our denomination did this several months ago. We will not longer “sign” marriage licenses, but will celebrate “Holy Matrimony” as a church service.

Well see how this works out . . .

[SuzyQue]

Isn’t that what the Scots do? You get married in a church, and then you go down to city hall for your civil union stuff.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

All they need to do is take the power of civil unions away from religious institutions. The religious institution can still “marry” people under their religion and hold the ceremony, but the license would be signed at the courthouse by a judge or notary public.

* * *

This is how they do it in France. A small civil ceremony occurs at the city hall (mairie? can’t remember what it’s called) and you’re officially married. The ceremony at church or wherever is up to you. Many couples do both on the same day. I agree, I think that’s what we need to do here in the U.S.

[Alberta's Child]

I would take it one step further. Once religious institutions get out of the business of giving out civil marriage licenses, there's really no reason for a married couple who are members of that organization to even bother getting a marriage license.

The whole idea of ANYONE -- let alone a religious group -- getting a "marriage license" is absolutely offensive in a free country.