I think you're reaching a bit to say that California's new "marriage" (or whatever silly way they want to define it) is "in its very definition, ungodly". Certainly it allows for ungodly unions; however, it also allows for godly ones.

Maybe this would work as a parallel: California allows businesses that produce obscene materials to get business licenses. Does that mean that Christians shouldn't get a business license?

OK, so it doesn't quite work.

Question: is the issue just with the word "marriage"? If, hypothetically, CA were to no longer issue "marriage licenses" at all, but would issue "civil union licenses" to any 2 people, would you have the same objection to Christians participating?

Great questions, ones I've been considering since Massachusetts went this direction. A few random thoughts:

1. As a pastor, I will not be party to such an arrangement; i.e., right now, I will not sign a marriage license in Massachusetts, nor will I in California after June 17, nor will I in any state should "gay marriage" become the law of the land. This does not mean I will not bless marriages; it means I will not be a party to the some state's convoluted definitions.

2. I have had conversations with my wife, as well as with pastor friends, about whether or not my wife and I ought to renounce STATE RECOGNITION of our marriage should "gay marriage" become the law of the land. Of course, we've been happily married for nearly 26 years, have no intention of divorcing, etc. But if the state changes the rules of the game such that we no longer want to play, we will strongly consider this option.

3. That leads to a third question: ought we not have a serious conversation, as pastors, about the need to labor for the official "separation of marriage and state", if trends continue? The state's involvement in marriage is of relatively recent vintage, historically, in this country (I want to say late 19th-century). I'm not sure that this is my preferred option, but it would beat the wholesale redefinition of marriage that we are threatened with.

At the very least, a nationwide implementation of "gay marriage" would make me ambivalent toward couples choosing to get a state marriage license. I'd have no qualms whatever about marrying them sans a state license--marriage stands/falls in the sight of God long before it does so relative to the state. Now, that currently would place me outside the law in 30-some states (I believe that's the number); "solemnizing" a marriage sans state approval is a misdemeanor offense, I believe. I had this very discussion with my state representative when I lived in PA, right after Massachusetts went wacky on us, by the way. Those laws would, it seems to me, be proven to be unconstitutional pretty easily, but nonetheless, there may come a time when we'll have to choose between obeying God and obeying the state.

My choice is made.

I take it you wouldn't have eaten meat sacrificed to idols?

I don't see that as parallel. I wouldn't have eaten meat sacrificed to idols if in the sacrificing, the very definition of "meat" was changed to "tuna fish".

I guess I don't understand. How does calling meat "tuna fish" change the fact that it is still meat? You can pretend the meat is tuna while you eat it, you can even grill it covered in a soy sauce glaze and seseme seeds, but it is still meat. I look at this as a clean vs unclean issue, and no worldly change in definition can change my marriage in my eyes or God's.

Right...in your eyes or in God's. I agree. Which is why I argue that we no longer play along with the state, because in the state's eyes, there would have been a change. We keep marriage where it belongs--an institution ordained by God, before God, and between one man and one woman, and we tell the state that we're not interested, in the event these redefinitions take place, because that's fundamentally what is being proposed, a radical redefinition of the institution itself, in the eyes of the state.

Some time ago, I wrote a little explanation of why I thought Christians should oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. I know this post is about a state, not a federal, issue, but I think the principles are similar. Assuming you saw the "truth" back in the old days, would you have refused a marriage license when states banned interracial marriage or when they allowed polygamy?

In Genesis 2, God created a marriage, but he didn't create a county clerk to certify the marriage. The first politician in the Bible was Nimrod and the first government project was the Tower of Babel. Why do we "encourage" young couples to get marriage licenses at all? Is marriage really something, theologically, that needs government approval? Or, do we get government approval simply because we want the carrot-like benefits, such as tax breaks and inheritance laws, waved in front of us by the government's proverbial stick?

"The early Christians did not worry about Roman laws that protected pagan homosexuality, but rather they sought only God's approval for their marriages and lived in a way that made clear their marriages were holy (which literally means separate). The God-created institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years and much of that time the Christian ideals of marriage have not received government sanction."
http://www.brucesabin.com/fma.html

I'm feelin' ya, Bruce.

The question that comes to my mind is why the church (and/or Christians) should care about what the state defines as a marriage, with regard to our marriages.

If Judy & Thomas in the church want to get married, why not do the ceremony and not even care about the state's authentication.

I know that's thinking outside the box for many, but once the state effectively takes itself out of the "marriage" business, why look to it for validation?

Gunny Hartman, pastor
www.ProvidenceChurch.info
Garland, TX (SBC)