I’m no fan of religious chest-beating, but I would be wary of that epithet “false prophet.” Scholars indicate Jesus had some very specific kinds of people in mind when he used those words. He wasn’t talking about state legislators.

From: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=14450&hits=6637+6636+6635+6634+6633+3123+3122+3121+3120+3119+3101+3100+3099+3098+3097+5+4+3+2+1+

In re LOVE’S ESTATE, 142 P. 305
Decided: 07/14/1914
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

“… In the instant case, both the county and district courts found that the facts were sufficient to establish a common-law marriage. The deceased took this woman in the presence of witnesses to be his wife, moved her to another town, where they lived together as man and wife, and were known as such, until the man came to his death. At the trial of this suit a little daughter, the result of this union, sat innocently by, unconscious that her very name and future status were being determined there. We infer from the record that the property involved is insignificant, and was probably little in mind, while this woman fought for the relation of wife and for a name for her little girl. She is entitled to both. We do not propose to sit here, considering the most sacred relation of life, and construe away the status of this woman, who appears to have acted in good faith; neither will we turn the innocent result of this common-law union out into the world a nameless thing. She was begotten by a man who had voluntarily assumed the relation of husband, and she shall have the right to be called his child and bear his name.”

Taking away common-law marriage is straight-up contrary to the state’s supposed interest in encouraging and supporting marriage. (also what does the state propose to do with those who are already married in the eyes of the law and God, but who never solemnized it) Common-law marriage was created to protect the spouses in the event of probate, support, etc. Taking it away would be a step backwards.

Also I should add that if I ever do get married, I don’t plan on getting a marriage license. Seperation of Church and State should mean just that. The state never should have got into the marriage busiess to begin with.

Virtually every politician, including the most vile, has been married and had children, so what kind of a reccommendation was that supposed to be?

Lynette and I got married at College Hill Presbyterian Church in Tulsa in 2001. The service was officiated by our pastor, and was attended by the congregation. We had a reception in the fellowship hall and were sent on our way, with our Best Man and Matron of honor. We are totally committed, and divorce is a word that just never enters our mind. This is a lifer, folks. So why wasn’t our “application” for marriage accepted by the state? Because we’re the same gender.

Makes no sense to me.