New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
A FriendlyChristian.com reader writes:
A good friend of mine has been dating a very nice woman for over a year now. They are happy together, share myriad common interests and generally just make a great couple. I’ve been particularly happy for my friend because he’s in his mid 30s and wants to have a family, and this relationship has seemed like it is moving him closer to that.
Of course, any good story has a central conflict needing resolution. In this case, my friend is an atheist and his girlfriend is Christian. He’s moderate and accepts that faith is an important part of many people’s lives. She’s faithful, but not crazy “the world is only 6000 years old and every word of the Bible is literally true.” For a couple of laid back moderates, strong issues of religion have kind of snuck up on them.
The problem is that he honestly takes her as she is. As nearly as I can tell, he loves her because of the strength of her convictions not in spite of them. She, on the other hand, is constantly conflicted as to whether she can build a life with him as he is (an atheist). My understanding is that she finds him wonderful otherwise BUT wishes he’d believe in God in some way, shape or form.
How, could, or even should these two work this out? I am particularly interested in this from the view of faithful people because it’s the perspective I understand least. At the bare minimum, all of this (from my perspective) one-sided conflict is taking the joy out of this relationship for my friend, and I want to see him happy. Friendly Christians, I need your counsel! How do I help my friend?
Calling all commenters. Let’s hear what you have to say.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Loading ...
Inter-faith marriages are going to be hard at times. No matter how much you love someone, there is a huge part of yourself that you will never be able to share with your partner. Only the bride and groom can decide for themselves whether this marriage is what they really want, but they should talk about it *a lot* before they say “I do.” Faith issues are especially hard once a couple decides to have children. These folks would do well to decide right now how they will raise their kids (in terms of faith). The last thing anyone wants is to have to fight about God over a newborn.
Best of luck to them in whatever they decide. Have they done any sort of premarital counseling?
First time commenter. Been reading for a couple of weeks now and more or less enjoying what I’ve been seeing. Too late into any of the other conversations to really take part in the discussions, but I figure I can start early enough here.
This is what many people take the 2 Corinthians passage about uneven yoking to be referring to. Its not about being friends or working with someone, its about tying yourself to them for life. Many people think its unwise to bind yourself to someone following a different guide. You may walk the same direction for a while, but sooner or later the one you are following (Jesus, in a Christian’s case), will lead you along a path an unbeliever won’t go on. At that point, what is a believer to do?
You can’t make someone believe or stop believing. It’s a brain chemistry thing (aka it comes from within) and wishing hard that someone would be different won’t change that.
They can either choose to accept each other as they are and live with their differences or move apart. OK there are other options but that’s the obvious conclusions.
Well, I’m in a similar situation in that I am a moderate-to-liberal Christian dating an atheist-agnostic-humanist going on two years now. Yes, we have hyphens for our beliefs!
At any rate, I recently heard directly from my pastor on this very topic. Let me bring in some quotes from his e-mail:
“In regards to marriage, I just think it is a point of bonding to have a
common faith. I do not think you have to believe exactly the same thing.
But having a common faith to pursue together is very helpful in the tough
times. My experience as a husband and as a counselor is that marriage is
very, very difficult. It is the closest relationship you have on a peer
level (children are close but different). It is the one that takes the most
work and offers the greatest form of intimacy. Having a common faith
(meaning that you worship together and pursue God together) brings the
couple into a realm that is larger than themselves. ”
So where do I stand on it, as a Christian? I believe God works in ways I cannot understand. I know that my girlfriend understands me like none of my other three Christians girlfriends ever did. She says the same thing, except that for her, none of her atheist boyfriends understood her like I do. This isn’t to say that we don’t have disagreements, and boy did we ever at the start!
I’ll add some more later…gotta run right now…
I hope they’ve already discussed what they’re going to do regarding children. That’s where the intense disagreements really start.
I think Arlin and Hover have hit some things that I would see as issue.
#1 Arlen brought up the fact that this should be considered for life. Marriage should not be considered throw away and if it doesn’t work…oh well. There is going to be a lot of concern in each party knowing that their relationship will be one that is often strained. Which leads to
#2 Hover brought up the fact that each person is already wired a certain way going into this relationship. That is unlikely to change. The reality is that both parties will likely dive more so into their beliefs/ideas as they continue in life, in turn making this even harder.
From a Christian’s perspective, I can understand how this lady would be concerned over their relationship. Her beliefs lead her to understand that if he does not believe in God and come to know Him, his soul will not be with hers in eternity. This would be disheartening to me as well.
I personally see a lot of heartache and struggle in their relationship if they stick it out.
So let me ask this, if two Christians marry and one becomes an atheist…should the other seek a divorce?
Just because you marry someone who shares your faith doesn’t mean they’re going to keep that for the length of your marriage…
Erik said,
Agreed.
Now, There is nothing about this conversation that requires the question you’ve asked, but I will answer my opinion…NO.
Erik that was not meant to sound rude, but when I reread, it sounded that way.
I would like to hear more of your story. I tend to agree with your Pastor. And with all due respect, you and your girlfriend do not know some things about each other as well as your old boyfriends/girlfriends did and that is your atheist/Christian beliefs.
On an emotional/physical level, I am sure you guys are closer than with any other, but on a spiritual level you are co-existing. You can not truly understand each other in that regard.
I truly believe that marriage is “till death do us part”. Obviously we could get into discussions here about abuse and so on, but that wouldn’t help this discussion. I would hope that you and any other person, Christian or not, would value marriage this way. In doing so, you may come to the conclusion that you and your girlfriend can make it work and commit to that promise. I would hope so and would wish that for you.
I think marriage is intense no matter what, and I agree with Erik’s pastor that religious conflict is a pretty hefty strain to impose from the beginning.
That said, I’m the product of a mixed marriage (Mom’s about to get ordained, Dad’s an atheist) and it’s been a strain for them, but not more than anything else. I think Mom’s a better minister because of her experience with atheists in her family, and I think my dad and I are better atheists because of our love for my mom. (By better, I mean more tolerant of other viewpoints. Is that better?)
So, if there’s conflict but it doesn’t overwhelm the marriage and the family, maybe it can be a good thing?
@InWorship-How hard would it be to devote yourself to a partner you do not believe would be with you for eternity? Would that thought be the biggest barrier to a relationship, or would it be more “cultural” things like what everyone does on Sundays and prayers at meals etc.? My family never had conflict around those outward things, but I wonder about the internal struggle for a Christian in such a family.
Hey Heather. As a Christian I believe that some will be with God in eternity and some will not. Who that will be? I cannot say. The Bible says that only God has that answer.
I don’t think the ultimate goal of Christianity is to “save” people, but instead for them to see and know the God that loves them. I think doing this is what God intended for everyone when he said to love Him and love people.
Like I said to Erik, I would truly wish for a wonderful relationship for anyone in this situation. We know it will be hard(consider that money and religion are the 2 biggest factors in failed marriages), but that does not mean it is not worth it. I would hope that everyone just considers the wonderful privilege and responsibility of marriage and respects that. In the midst of trials is where we often learn and experience the most. It is in difficult times that we grow in relationship in very intense ways, either good or bad. At’s all in priority and attitude.
Now to make it all personal and answer your questions that way. I know for me it would not be a barrier to friendship, but possibly to a “till death do us part” relationship. Not because of where we may be in the future, but because of what we believe right now. Cultural things wouldn’t bother me very much. I am not one that is much for traditions or rituals. I am pretty accepting of all different styles and approaches and would love to learn for someone that sees completely different than me. If not to take on the same ideas as my own, but definitely to understand. I am sure there would be very difficult times for me in a relationship like this. I would want so desperately for my partner to know and experience the God I know. I would never want to force this, but it would be a consistent conversation of mine and something, that even if I chose not to speak about it or bring it up, would still weigh on me very heavily.
Hey InWorship-thanks for an amazing response. And I am soooo with you on the privilege and responsibility of marriage. I’d think that if some common ground can’t be found beforehand, it most likely wouldn’t be found later. Better to figure out if the weight of religious differences is too much ~before~ marriage than after.
Amen !
I hope no-one minds if I veer off at a bit of a tangent here. I can understand why marriage is important to a Christian but not to an Atheist. A marriage being ritual within a religious faith that marks a new chapter in the life of two people. As an atheist am inclined to reject the trappings of faith along with the faith itself. I realise that in general this isn’t the case and many atheists see marriage as a social and legal construct and not merely a religious one.
However the emphasis on marriage is different for atheists and Christians. I can see the social reasons and the legal reasons for marriage but as an atheist the religious reasons are meaningless.
Does this create an insurmountable barrier to a successful relationship? No but it remains a hurdle nonetheless. Both parties need to agree on what they want out of a marriage and not to just go along with the wishes of their friends, families and church.
Hover - I truly understand what you are saying, but, we have an opportunity everyday to abide by legal agreements/covenants/bindings. If you strip everything religious about marriage out of it, you still have a legal promise to not separate. You’ve taken a legal oath. Whether it’s important to uphold it seems to be an integrity issue, not a religious one.
And I have to say it, but why are people fighting so desperately to have marriages, so that they can be legally in union if it is a religious thing?
I am truly asking here…not fighting. What is so important about marriage that someone has to have it even if they consider themselves to be anti-religious?
HI,
Longtime lurker here.
I think the success of the marriage really depends on how “in your face” religion is in the marriage. I’m not trying to be mean. What I mean is that the position on religious fervor (for lack of a better word) needs to be pretty neutral by both parties. I would assume that if 2 people want to get together, they aren’t intentionally going to be antagonizing each other. They each need to let some things slide. It’s compromise, just like any other aspect of the marriage. Is there really any reason why you can’t keep your personal religion personal? If you are supposed to be a team, constantly annoying your partner is going to get you nowhere.
I am an atheist and my wife is what I would call a non-practicing Christian. She believes but doesn’t go to church often or really ever talk about her religion. We have been married 12 years now with 2 kids (5 and 7) and we haven’t had any “religious” problems. We got married in her church and I didn’t complain when she wanted to have the kids baptized as infants. I was and it doesn’t really mean anything to me at all but it was important to her. We don’t go to church except for funerals, weddings and that sort of thing. However, if she wanted to go I wouldn’t care. Just don’t expect me to go. Take the kids once in a while if you want - as long as THEY want to go (no mandatory attendance). Also I get equal time to explain things from my point of view. Later it will be totally up to them whether or not they want to “join up” or not but at least they will have the information from BOTH sides to make a (hopefully) rational decision.
Hi Brent, none of the promises that you make on your wedding day are legally binding. A legal promise not to separate can be nullified with a divorce. There are other areas where a marriage is recognised and a long term relationship isn’t. I’m thinking of insurance and the rights of next of kin but an insurance policy can be written to include anyone and you can grant the rights of next of kin to whomsoever you choose. It’s just a little more hassle.
I agree with you that it is an issue with integrity but then the law and religion aren’t necessary to bind a relationship if both parties have the integrity and will to do the best for one another.
I’m guessing that you refer to gay marriages. The answer to this is fairly straightforward in that a repressed (actual or perceived, it doesn’t matter) minority is simply seeking equal footing with the majority and asking for equal rights and status in society.
It’s curious from my point of view that people are finally being granted the right to marry anyone that they choose just when marriage has it’s lowest value. I say it has it’s lowest value as I read this morning that the 50% mark has been tipped in the percentage of children born in the UK in and out of marriage. With 40% of the remaining parents divorcing it doesn’t look like marriage is a stable institution.
@ Hover
I see your point, thanks for explaining it that way. I still think it is a legal agreement, but we do have legal ways of getting out of it.
And, yes, I am speaking to gay marriage. Let’s say that the goal here is benefits. I would understand the desire to fight for unions of some sort, but I don’t understand the desire to fight for marriage which is a religious institution.
I do understand that marriage is really all we had going by way of reaching these benefits, but are we not better served with unions for people outside of a religious or traditional marriage? This offers benefits to all parties involved in unions and allows for marriage to be held to a standard the Christians and other religions hold it to.
I am thinking more than asking here. I don’t know your take on civil unions verses marriage, so i am just thinking.
inWorship,
Gay marriage can be about more than benefits/legal standing. Many gay people are religious and no doubt want a religious ceremony to honor their commitment to each other.
The difficulty HappyNat is that most religions deem marriage one man and one woman. I understand that these people may be religious and want the union as well as a religious ceremony and they are available, but why do they feel the need to change a religious institution when they could have the same exact thing under a civil union and still have a religious ceremony? Do they want to change religion or do they want to change the institution? It seems they would need to change religion to do this.
So I am assuming you are against civil unions?
It is NOT solely a religious institution. It is a social institution - anywhere you have societies, religious or not, you have marriages. As social creatures, we want to be seen as committed partners both by our peers and by the government. That applies regardless of heterosexual / homosexual.
I’m married to my wife. There is and never has been any religion involved.
To those who advocate for ‘civil unions’: If you want a religious marriage, you can call yours religious unions. We’ll stay married.
“there is a huge part of yourself that you will never be able to share with your partner.”
I’m not sure that’s so. There’s a big difference between sharing yourself and doing or even liking the same things. The key to a good relationship is mutual appreciation, NOT necessarily agreement. What kills relationships is resentment.
I think this is clearly more of a concern for certain Christian beliefs (not all) than it is for non-believers. I think that some Christians believe that belief is absolutely necessary to get through the “hard times” whereas non-believers know that you can get through tough times just as well with or without belief: belief is window dressing on top of what are the normal human emotions and coping mechanisms. So it isn’t as much of a priority for non-believers that we both must absolutely believe this or that or else we won’t be able to cope.
@Ben
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. if I am understanding, you just want to see the same privilege, not the same title. Hoverfrog and I were speaking to marriage as more of a religious institution, so that was how the discussion was focused. In that discussion we were determining the importance or integrity of marriage as an institution and how that looks religiously and non-religiously.
@Bad
As a Christian, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that philosophy before. For me, it has never been an issue of how we cope, but an issue of who we put our trust and hope in when we cope. People can get through amazing things without God and others cannot get through the day without Him, so this really isn’t a standard I’d live by.
I was not sure who you quoted this from…if it was me, I forgot saying it, but I tend to agree with this.
I can learn to respect someones views and even get to a place of understanding so that I can care for that individual, but I can never know what they have truly known or gone through. If I was to befriend a woman who was raped, I can surely learn to love and care for her, but I can never truly understand nor would I claim to know what she went through.
@Ben
Sorry I misspoke on one thing. I do agree with your basic statement, but where we differ is that as a Christian I believe that marriage began as a religious institution. Whether you see it as such is not the issue for me. I see it as an institution that God created for man and woman and I will always see it that way. What it becomes is up to the American people and in my opinion a vote. I will accept what becomes of it. But, it won’t change how I see it.
I dispute that, but the point is moot. Today, right now, marriage is NOT solely a religious institution. There are no laws about baptism, or first communion, or confirmation, etc. No one goes to a justice of the peace to get baptised. There are multitudes of laws governing marriage, and my wife and I did go to a Justice of the Peace to get married.
If I am not married from a Christian point of view, I don’t care. I am married from a legal and societal point of view. You don’t get to take a social and religious institution, call it exclusively your own, and try and create a second class of people who are members of ‘civil unions.’ If you consider the terminology unimportant, then call your religious institution a ‘religious union.’ If the terminology IS important to you - as it is to me - then do not try and deprive others of the term.
What becomes of the social institution is up to the American people. What becomes of the religious institution of marriage is up to the religious leaders. The American people don’t get to vote on laws about who gets baptised, or gets to receive communion, etc. These are solely religious institutions not governed by laws. Marriage IS covered by secular laws, applying to everyone of any religion or no religion.
When you consider your vote on the social institution of marriage, if you are considering it in religious terms, you are doing a disservice to every American who is outside of your religion. The religious institution of marriage is already under religious control, totally and completely.
@Ben
You have some interesting thoughts. Kind of what we have all been saying, but so be it.
One comment, you said,
This is not America I’m afraid. we are given the ability and right to vote as people. Religious, atheist, white, black…it doesn’t matter what we believe in or who we think we are, we are given the right to vote what we believe. I would expect you to vote based on your social and atheistic views, and I would expect no difference from myself to vote my religious views. This doesn’t discredit anyone, it credits EVERYONE. That what America is and should be. Everyone has their say. This is not a popularity contest…you vote your mind, heart and soul.
So you would expect me to vote against allowing clergy to conduct marriages? I wouldn’t do that. I’m not religious, but I know many are, and they want to get married by clergy. When I vote, I am voting for what I think is the best for all Americans, not just the ones I agree with. I should and do take in viewpoints other than my own.
@Ben
Where is the line drawn? When do you choose to vote or not? How do you determine what is best for everybody? What if your vote hurts some but helps others? Would yous till vote?
You have to and would be expected to vote for what you believe America should be as a country. that is what freedom is. our country can become most anything it wants. Seems to me that is how it was setup to be run. Everyone has a voice. At least they should…
Of course. There is gray everywhere.
Yes. Including all its citizens.
Brent, on the subject of gay marriages I don’t think that the emphasis is on religious acceptance. I think that it is more about social equality. If heterosexual couples can marry then why can’t homosexual couples. I think it’s about equality. Then again I’m not gay and I’ve never wanted to get married or been overly concerned about being accepted so what do I know about it? For what it’s worth I don’t think anyone goes into marriage because of legal reasons or social benefits. Rather a social expectation.
You also commented that you thought that marriage was initially a religious institution rather than a social one. I’d have to disagree but sadly neither of us have the historical evidence to outweigh the other.
I think marriage, by that name or another, has existed since humans as social animals first developed life long partnerships. I think that religions added a certain degree of gravitas to these partnerships but I don’t think that they invented them.
RE:InWorship
“And I have to say it, but why are people fighting so desperately to have marriages, so that they can be legally in union if it is a religious thing?”
“I am truly asking here…not fighting. What is so important about marriage that someone has to have it even if they consider themselves to be anti-religious?”
From an agnostic’s viewpoint - one who is partnered with a angostic/atheist, marriage = legal rights and tax benefits. On paper once married you count as family. This means that you get to make legal decisions for your spouse in times of emergencies instead of your partner’s family members. Honestly, my boyfriend and I are toying with the idea of never getting married. We are pondering that staying together because we want to (it being so easy to just leave), not because we said we would, is actually more romantic. This of course taking all religious influence out of the decision.
Sara, I don’t understand why you think living together is more romantic than marriage.
What’s unromantic about two people saying “I want to spend my life with you so let’s commit to being together”? What’s romantic about, either one of you could just up and leave, the day you decide “Actually, I don’t want to be here any more”?
I think it’s much more romantic when two people decide they want to be together so much they will make a commitment to each other, to stay together no matter what and to try to resolve their differences if they go through a difficult patch.
I realize lots of people get divorced - they don’t necessarily carry through on that commitment. Or maybe one betrays the other horribly and the other can’t recover from it.
Nevertheless, I think making that commitment is more romantic than not making it. Why do you think people who live together want to be together more than people who say “Let’s get married”?
When a man says “Let’s not get married - this is more romantic” how do you know he’s not just trying to avoid the commitment of marriage, because he wants to be free to leave if he feels like it, someday? (And likewise, if a woman says it, how do you know it’s not just an excuse to avoid commitment?)
I don’t think anyone should rush into marriage, but I also don’t see it as the negative thing you seem to be thinking it is.
I’d have to agree with Sara, the romance of marriage is certainly dampened by the ease of divorce. For me and The Hildy, who have never married, we saw marriage as a pretty pathetic contract and a huge expense.
Helen, the romance isn’t in the wedding or in the preparations for it. It has to be ongoing. The ceremony of the big day doesn’t change that.
I’ve asked a couple of atheists in the past why they consider marriage a worthwhile institution. They invariably say that they want the legal rights associated with marriage and a big party. In England the legal rights are minimal and I suspect that the USA has similar small benefits that aren’t really worth that much. Perhaps some tax savings and a legal right to decide the fate of your spouse in an accident.
I’m not a big fan of the “big party”. I usually end up in the kitchen avoiding the crowds. I know people who have spent £20k or more on a wedding. That’s about $45k I think. Imagine what this could mean to a couple if it was spent elsewhere. A deposit on a mortgage, a business startup, a round the world trip lasting a year, counselling to get through those occasional rough patches. I’m sure you can think of many other things.
The pressure on couples to have a big wedding is enormous and totally unnecessary. Really girls are often raised with the expectation and hope of a fairytale wedding which just isn’t a reality. We stopped it just by saying that we weren’t going to bother. We have better things to do.
When people ask why we’re not married I ask them why they got married or why they want to get married. Typically it’s because they wanted to stay together or start a family. I tell them that we didn’t need a marriage licence to get those things. We aren’t religious so we don’t recognise the religious aspects of marriage and aren’t mercenary enough to marry just for a small tax break. The chances of an accident are small and I trust The Hildy’s parents and siblings to act in accordance with her wishes as she does with mine.
Helen, a relationship is in many ways a partnership, if one party suspects the other of avoiding commitment and making up a lie about it then I wouldn’t give them much hope whether they choose to marry or not.
Hoverfrog, I don’t understand the reasons for not getting married. (I’m not asserting “you’re wrong”, but rather “I don’t understand) Why not have a small simple wedding if the size of it is the issue?
I take your point that if partners are lying to each other/there’s a lack of trust in a relationship it’s not going to go well anyway whether a marriage takes place or not.
Isn’t it more complicated for your kids if you aren’t married - or are you not planning to have any?
RE: Helen
I completely understand that this other version of romantic sounds terrible. No pretty dress, no party/celebration, no diamond ring, etc. I agree that even a small wedding would be a compromise.
“I think it’s much more romantic when two people decide they want to be together so much they will make a commitment to each other, to stay together no matter what and to try to resolve their differences if they go through a difficult patch.”
Staying as we are isn’t about avoiding commitment. For me commitment questions come up after a few weeks of dating. I think people like to know what they are dealing with whether marriage is on the table or not.
I agree with you and hoverFrog that commitment is important and I think you are both on the same page about that. Once two people are commited the paperwork and ceremony are the only difference between saying you are married/unmarried.
I just don’t think signing a paper means you will stay together no matter what and to resolve all differences. People who have that mindset will do those things whether they sign a paper or not.
If I sign a legal document promising my boyfriend to never leave, thats something I take pretty seriously. I don’t ever want the fact that I made a promise to be the reason I don’t leave. I never intend to leave and I’m sure that I never will. But in those horrible rough patches I want to be able to reflect on the situation and say that he’s a wonderful man, I love him and that we can just work this out. Inevitably, if we were married, I’m sure that in those angry moments my obligation to keep my word would weigh on my mind. I never want to think that a divorce would be too hard, too much to sort out, etc. I want to only focus on the fact that when all is said and done I just want to be with him.
As for the $ involved with a wedding, I’m sure a small wedding wouldn’t cost very much, but I really do have everything I want just the way things are.
“Isn’t it more complicated for your kids if you aren’t married - or are you not planning to have any?”
With respect to kids, I’m not sure things will be complicated. Unfortunately, the divorce rate has made different last names extremely common. As a side note, personally I really frown upon divorce but thats a different thread altogether.
We hope to have at least two kids down the road. If we are unwed, then they will have my name.
Thanks for your responses, Sara.
Helen, we have four children and I agree that it is more complicated for them. Most of their friends’ parents are divorced, some have remarried. They have step siblings and step parents. My kids just have me and their mother. It must be difficult missing out on the extra bedroom at the weekend.
It’s true that you could have a simple wedding but social pressures seem to steer people into big weddings. I don’t know why because the best wedding I ever went to was my friend Sarah’s when she married her girlfriend in a pub. Simple and fun. I suppose it could be that lesbian weddings are more fun but I’m going the route of simple.
Anyway you said you didn’t understand so I’ll try to summarise in an effort to be clear.
I believe marriage is a religious ceremony and I’m not religious.
The legal benefits of marriage are minimal.
The social benefits of marriage have been eroded to the point where they are no longer relevant.
I don’t need marriage to show my love and commitment to my partner.
I reject the social pressures to conform to an institution that I see no benefit in.
A wedding is typically expensive and very stressful. I’d rather not subject myself or my family to that.
No one has ever provided me with a good reason to get married.
i actually think Hovers policy is kinda sweet, having met a fair few couples who are blatantly unhappy in their marriages. some people stick around in miserable situations that are blantantly never going to work out for years before a divorce solely because they are married. it makes a nice change for people to stick together because they want to, rather than because it’s easier than facing all kinds of emotional then legal ramifications.
i follow the Oscar Wilde vein on marriage - if someone wants to marry me, they’re not good enough :d
)
(although i wish i still had an excuse for a big expensive party all about me
Some churches are adopting my position:
I like that article Ben
I’d love to see more people adopt this response. Civil disobedience is a wonderful way of getting things to change.
I think that the point is well made as well. Marriage in the eyes of God (if you believe in that) is different from marriage in the eyes of the law. Perhaps a distinction should be made between a civil union and the religious ceremony. I wonder if anyone chooses get married in church but not in law?
I have a very religious friend who lived “in sin” with his then future wife for a year or more. His reason was that he could not get a date at his church and a registry office wedding was “not valid in the eyes of God”. It wouldn’t have been an issue if he hadn’t been so judgmental regarding my own circumstances.