Are you sinning if you don’t secure a marriage license from the state? Not necessarily, as long as you entered into a binding arrangement and had that contract properly solemnized. You would want to make sure the church was well aware of what you were doing and upon what grounds though. Beyond that, you might consider the fact that your actions, if misunderstood by others, might lead to bringing reproach upon the gospel; and, if you did not take great care to avoid that, your actions, though not sinful in and of themselves, would be sinful because of the consequences they led to.

On the whole, at this time in our nation’s history, the wisest course of action is for a believer to secure a marriage license from the state.

Hope that helps.

I guess my main question is. Do we submit to the constitution? Or do we submit to the present state? I feel that the present state is very unconstitutional. Marriage licenses are in violation of article 1 section 10 of the constitution which says “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Here is the next question. Am I sinning if I legally do not get a marriage license? Or am I sinning if I do?

Here is a great link on this topic from a lawyer in the 1800′s http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

Thanks guys!

The key issue in your gay marriage debate reference is that the government has no business defining a marriage. Marriages have always been defined and contracted within communities whether that be the family, the church, or some other religious order.

As for using rational arguments for the existence of God to in turn posit God as the basis for moral order in society, I don’t see a problem with that per say. The Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their “Creator” with certain unalienable rights. In this very significant, national, founding document it sounds to me like, God is identified as the basis of human rights. So no, I don’t see a problem here. Obviously a number of other supplementing arguments and qualifications are going to be needed to clarify your position, but there does not seem to be anything inherently inconsistent with your commitment to a natural law-based political philosophy.

I understand the problems with theonomy, but what I don’t understand is why some would go so far and say that a vote against gay marriage is a theonomic stance. (Even though the state has no power to define marriage, they just want to think they do)

Can I argue the existence of God in the political world and still be able to consider myself a natural law type? I feel this is a key issue for me and many others. I feel that with the absence of God in the political world, there is no argument for peoples rights.

Tom Skerritt,
Toronto, ON.