She's aware of the Marriage Pledge, the initiative formulated by Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz that called for Christian ministers to set aside their civil authority to sign
government marriage licenses.
To continue with church practices that
intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.
Wycliffe College's Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz, who drafted the pledge, write, «To continue with church practices that intertwine
government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.»
The problem is that such documents dramatize to us how
far government marriage has strayed from the institution of marriage.
I'm also quite capable of debating with him about whether or
not government marriage in New York should allow no - fault divorce or whether married couples (as defined by the state!)
Thus the need to get out of
the government marriage business.
Sullivan anguishes that renouncing the power to witness to
government marriage is «just one more thread removed from our commonality.»
Muddling up the new government - defined marriage with the biblically - defined marriage — which is the symbolic consequence of signing
a government marriage document in New York today — only makes things worse.
Government marriage is... well, it's hard to tell.
marriage pledge R. R. Reno writes in «
Government Marriage» (December) that he «can't see how a priest or pastor can in good conscience sign a marriage license for «Spouse A» and «Spouse B.»» Then, in support of the Marriage Pledge put forward by....
For example, a country might recognize Islamic law as effective for family law matters between Muslims, and might hold that a marriage not licensed by
a government marriage license was still valid if the marriage was effected in a manner recognized by Islamic law.