This is not a religious belief. This is based on the truth about marriage that is accessible to all, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of.

Bringing a falsehood into a religious ceremony is to lend that falsehood an air of legitimacy or authority that it simply cannot have, morally, and that is so regardless of the tattered state of marriage law where SSM has been merged with marriage.

Start with the truth about this type of relationship, marriage, and the rest follows. Start with the pro-SSM falsehood and walk into quicksand.

Your research, such as it might be, merits a failing grade, if your comments are any indication of the depth of your knowledge on this matter.

Your continual string of errors no longer surprises me.

And maggiegallagher, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, any marriage that has taken place outside of the church or a RC Priest is not recognized as a sacramental marriage and therefore is not a marriage, since the only marriages that matter to the RC church ARE sacramental marriages. Try doing some research on the RC laws.

No; freedom of religion is afforded to established faiths rooted in this nation’s history and traditions; not cults that change their tenets to align with those of popular culture.

"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins"
Benjamin Franklin

Isn't is freedom of religion, to allow any church to dictate their own crede and beliefs? So, what is wrong with granting that freedom to all churches, not just churches who feel it's only one man, one woman (Or, historically, one man-many women, one man-many women and some concubines, one man-his dead brother's wife, et al).

The Episcopal Church is not basing their decision on their interpretation of scripture; they are basing their decision on transitory popular culture and the belief that their diminished standing in the community was brought about by their refusal to ignore the tenets of their faith.

The Bible is not open to interpretation; it is there to teach and guide you, to mold you in God's image; not mans.

This so-called minister has turned his back on God for the fleeting admoration of sinful men.

This is what the religion of political correctness is all about.

Do you really want to start making laws based on the majority's interpretation of what the Bible says?

This is really not well understood. But sacramental marriage can exist only between two baptized Christians. To whom was the prohibition of adultery addressed in the Old Testament if the Church only reocgnizes sacramental marriages, as marriages?

He separated from Rome in order for the state (himself) to regulate marriage and introduce divorce.

In particular, the RC church defines marriage in a very different way from civil marriage. It does not recognise civil marriage as marriage. It might as well be called Woogthump as Civil Marriage, as far as RC church is concerned.

No surprise it gets caught up in definitional concerns that no one outside the Church concerns themselves with.

The only thing that has changed is the fact that if gay couples have civil marriage licenses, their marriages will be recognized by (some) states... regardless of whether that marriage is solemnized in a cathedral or a city hall. Religious ceremonies are an *option* for civil marriages; they aren't required. And you know that.

Hello (echoes).

Where is everyone?