Correct me if I'm wrong but you are a pastor? Not God himself right? I go to church but the one thing I cant stand is people trying to be something that they are not & in the case of pastors/priests; God. Last I thought God wanted everyone to love one another & not cast judgment amongst each other cause in the end it is God who will ultimately decide our fate. There's something called separation of church and state. You shouldn't decided for someone who they can or can't love or marry. Although you may see it as morally wrong for reasons which seem highley contractible, you can't withhold someone's right to express their love to someone else simply because you don't see it as correct. I took genetics in undergraduate and in medical school and your claim about the genetics aspect of it is false. Simply put the research and the studies out there show , although maybe minor , there is some genetic input into human sexuality. I am not writing this comment as a lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gay but as a somewhat educated person I may say. There should be no reason as to why two people cant chose to marry who they want if at no point it is causing harm to anyone else. Simply put that how it should be. Studies and research as well as pure common sense can show that heterosexual marriage is not as all mighty as you may be believing. Most criminals come from broken homes of heterosexual couples. So who's to say that they should morally be able to marry? It's 2011,let hate rest

Jamie
What ever church you are in run away from it. You have been taught wrong if you think God decides our fate. You missed the greatest lesson for humanity. We decide our fate! That's right the whole of scripture teaches us that the choices we make matter for eternity. You don't see any hate speech in my blog so don't be unfair and accuse me of it. In fact if you ever hear me preach/teach I teach that God loves us all unconditionally. Sexually driven love or eros is to be enjoyed by man and woman only in holy marriage (God says so) Agape love or unconditional love is to be shared by all who know God (God says so also). You can email me at my office ulovecf@gmail.com the factual studies that determined sexual orientation is genetic. I need to read it/them. Are you implying that because most criminals come from broken heterosexual homes that gay/lesbien homes are better at raising wonderful and successful kids? I say let's learn to fix the broken home. And as far as separation of church and state I agree with the first amendment. That doesn't mean that knowlege gained from the bible should not be encouraged and implemented in society. And as far as my role in the community as pastor of a local church. I am called by God to share His ways so that we all may be better for it. I pray that you can respect that. If you know me, I admit I am not without my faults and I need God daily myself.

I will email you those studies I found and their is a book on Twin Studies which you should probably take a look. By you denying someone's happiness I don't see it as a way of spreading God's Love. Sure I agree with you that are actions determine our fate in life but our ultimate fate and direction in life was chosen by God before we were even conceived. You may not which to marry two people of the same sex; so be it. However, you should not deny someone the ability to express their love in that manner. And from studies I've read there have no neggative associations of children growing up in a non-heterosexual relationship household. I am sure that you are in a heterosexual marriage and have your flaws of being a parent. They should allow same sex marriage because that's a constiutional right which should have no influence from your bibilical beliefs. I may come from a different relgion that 's totally fine with it. Who is to say that your christianity belief should influence how my politicians decide to govern for my society? The theory and concept of bring relgion into this matter of a person's choice to choose who they love and wish to spend their life with forever is complete and utter ignorance. Don't marry same sex couples; fine. Allow them to married by others who don't have such an ignorant backwards way of thinking that will ultimately deny society's ability to grow and move forward in a positive light. Your ideology is ultimately continuing the negative attitudes

Another thing, why isnt this article under opinions? I cant believe that this "news organization" would allow it under Local Voices. You are not a local voice because I believe you dont speak for all of Essex County. This should be under an opinion column PATCH. Lets use your journalist experience to institute some common sense at least.

It is ridiculous that this is even being debated. Gay people have a right to marry and it is guaranteed by the Constitution protection of right to privacy and equal protection. The Constitution alone is the law of the land, the Bible is not and should have no place in any governmental decisions. Also, politicians should not let their own religious beliefs get in the way of their duty to serve the people. Since gay Americans are being disenfranchised when it comes to the right to marry, they have every right to DEMAND their Constitutionally guaranteed rights be protected. This all being said, I also do not believe that any religious houses of worship should be forced by the government to perform gay marriages if they do not support it. That would also be wrong.

Jamie
You acknowledge that God exists Great. And as far as considering it is 2011. The world acknowledges it is The Year of the Lord 2011. I base my perspective on His teaching. also this is not an article, it is a blog. It is in response to the news that a WO couple was part of the lawsuit filed on this subject. It is my constitutional right! I appreciate John's thoughts I would beg to differ though. I think politicians should shape their worldview on faith.

Wee live in a secular country. Why else would our founders have included a provision about the separation of church and state if they intended faith to be a influencing factor in their decision making. I have to completely disagree with you. It is not our politicians jobs to force their religious beliefs on others while in office.

John, "separation of church and state" is a common metaphor. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state" phrase, most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion. This is ALL it means.

The Founders were deeply religious men. Their intent could not be more clear.

Religion is a belief. I personally disagree with just about everything Pastor Boyle wrote in this blog. But that's his belief, I have mine, other readers will have theirs. That's the purpose of religion. While Pastor Boyle's vision of God would not allow gay citizens to marry, my vision of God would. Again, its our beliefs.

Thankfully we live in a country where the constitution is followed more than any religious belief. There is no state religion in this country. Religious figures do not run the country, set up laws, etc... It is becoming tougher and tougher for opponents of gay marriage to come up with reasoning to back their position without mentioning religion because legally, their position is extremely flawed.

All in all, God Bless America, because this really is the land of the free and that includes the freedom from being governed by someone's religion.

When it comes to the "founding fathers", it's more important to read their own writings than what others have written about them.

I think this has been a pretty fair and healthy debate free from name calling and outright criticism of each others points of view. I guess that says something about the Patch readers. I guess we are more civilized than those who post on NJ.com and other such news sites. This is what our country is about. The freedom to discuss these issues in an open forum with others.

Jefferson disagreed with the Trinity but he believed in God. The Declaration itself is evidence of this. Washington, Madison and Adams were Bible believers and confessed faith in Jesus Christ. FYI the motto of the American Revolution "No king but King Jesus" and the Bible was an American text book. The New England Primer was the first primer or text of the colonies and is full of sacred scripture. Claims that America was envisioned as a secular country is highly debateable. I strongly believe that the vision our founders had for America was one grounded in biblical truth. The Puritans viewed the new experience as the new Israel. As such God's laws should reign supreme not secular mans. The reason is simple God knows best and He sets the standard. I know it seems restrictive but God's ways are higher than ours and He wants what is best for His children. He does give strict warning about homosexual relations in His Word and we would be best served to acknowledge His sovereignty.

If one states that this country was founded on religious principals -- in essence America was a new Israel with Jesus and the Bible in mind -- than our founding fathers (and mothers) were merely crusaders. Their treatment of the native people was less than holy, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Is this what their god was asking of them? Is this the same god that is being discussed here on Patch? I have truly enjoyed reading this debate, but fear that religion and preaching by leaders such as Pastor Boyle will only hinder our growth as a civilization, and reduces our belief in ourselves and the power we have as individuals. It is possible to do good in the world without god, and I would argue that those who do good in their communities and life without god are more honest in the actions. (It's being done without a reinforcer of heaven or fear of hell.)
Please don't take this comment as a NJ.com-style post. I appreciate all the comments made, but feel that much of what was stated in the original blog by Boyle is much to do about nothing, and almost comical. West Orange as a community is much more intelligent than what his beliefs would have us bend to.

John
Did you know that the idea of executive, judicial and legislative system was taken from the Bible? The debate about whether the Bible is based on hearsay is a direction that would take to long to debate here. If you want to do it constructively we can plan a forum on it and hold it in my church. We can invite Patch, Cable TV etc.
Also you need to know that I served this community for 25 years as a police officer and 4 years in the USMC with honor. I serve as National Chaplain for the Police Unity Tour and I responded to the towers on 911. I have deep passion for freedom and liberty. To suggest that I should exercise my belief somewhere else is offensive. The Bible is not ancient it is eternal and the God who spoke to us through it is unchanging. He loves you unconditionally! Hope you can carve out some time from your studies and prepare for a forum debate.

The sheer silliness of basing the governance of a country on a Bronze Age super-hero comic book! I suppose you'd like us to add these to the legal code:

-Selling a daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

-Penalties for contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15: 19 - 24).

-The eating of shellfish as an abomination (Lev 11:10)

-Violations of Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as well as wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton/polyester blend).

-Since most men do get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27, and it requires the death penalty, any thoughts on how should they die?

-Since Lev 25: 44 states that we may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations, perhaps the US Constitution needs to be amended yet again.

There are more absurdities in that loose-leaf compendium known as the bible. Anything else you think should be enshrined in law, based on your say-so, Reverend?

There's no lack of clergy in NJ who are fine with same-sex marriage and have stated so publicly. What makes you so special that you should be paid attention to?

John,
I agree with everything you said. We must be very careful. That's my whole point! Are you familiar with biblical hermeneutics? In order to be a good teacher of God's word one must have a good set of these. It helps us from falling into legalistic traps (some were described here). Although I could, I choose not to address any of the silly argument that Bob and Loren raise. I don't know what motivates Westboro but as you can imagine I strongly disagree with them. Your point about Sharia etc is a very good one. God did want to establish theocracy with Israel, but they wanted to be like their neighbors who were outside of the covenant of God. So God let them establish a monarchy. It wasn't God's best and the people suffered for it. God is active/interactive and He wants what is best for us because He loves us. That is my message! The God of eternity who is the first cause of all even loves Loren and Bob (He gave them life) even though they mock Him.

Bob and Lauren's points aren't silly, no sillier than getting your morality from an invisible man in the sky. They point out the major holes in your argument. Your saying that god says homosexuality is a sin, because its in the bible. Well, these things are in the bible too. Why do you favor one over the other? because it suits you?

Pastor, you say that you accept all people and your god loves everyone out of one side of your mouth, and with the other your saying that we need to discriminate against gays. The true definition of a hypocrite.

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. No ones saying you should. I value a society that treats all people respectfully and equally, maybe yours doesn't, but my god tells me that that's the way we should be.

If two people are in a loving committed relationship, why shouldn't they have the same legal and social benefits as everyone else?

Let me address your argument on genetics. You have established that being homosexual cannot possibly be genetic based on your experience with a single set of twins. Did you ever consider that both of the twins are gay but one has suppressed those feelings because of societal pressure? Do you realize how impossibly close minded your thought process is? I will never understand how one can rationalize discrimination by use the best selling work of fiction in history. No matter how eloquently you frame your argument denying one group of people their constitutional right to happiness based on another's religious views is wrong.

I think what this country needs is the government and the clergy to back off and mind their own business. The evangelical fervor to spread "democracy" abroad (to oil rich countries) and for the clergy to determine what is moral and good are dated concepts. With the Depression/Recession it would be nice if we were all given more freedom. Freedom is what made our country unique. Now I fear that we are nothing more than a joke.

Rob to answer your question first, the answer is no. we'll wait and see what the scientific proof is and so far there is none. The anti God establishment tried the same nonsence with Darwinism. What we may conclude so far is that there is evolution within species which helps the bible claims of the flood but there is NO evidence of evolution between species and there never will be. In the OT God said that He would write the law on their (Israel) minds. So they tried to help and some sects place little scrolls with the ten commandments in little boxes tied around the forehead. That's what we mean by not having a good set of biblical interpretation (hermenuetics). God in OT times had to initiate certain dietary restrictions like forbidding eating shell fish etc. The reason is because without proper sanitation etc eating those foods would have been dangerous. All the other OT references are easily explained if the reader knows the context. Some of you folks think that people who study God are inferior intellectually. I say step up! let's have a public forum on the topic of God and the Constitution. Or evolution vs creation anything along those lines is fine with me. We can meet each other and y'all can see personally that I am a man who cares about God, Country, family and community. I like answering questions about God in the right environment, coffee and is on me.

I respect everyone's opinion and I'm glad we got back on track to what started this whole discussion. However, I am sorry but I don't think sitting down and having coffee with you pastor would help resolve anything that I am arguing about because simply put I don't believe in discriminating others regardless of however you try to illustrate your point. As a pastor and a man of "God" I don't see how you can be blinded to your own hate that you are suggesting doesnt exist because it's what it says in the bible. Like others before me have said you can personally decide not to marry a homosexual couple however they should be given that opporunity in life to experience such a thing. No matter how you try to spin your point Pastor you are essentially allowing and pursuing this hate and animosity towards people who have done no harm to you or I from what I am assuming. The same people that could so easily one day turn out to be your son or daughter, your sister or brother. For you deny your own families right to happiness; how godly does that make you feel? Put yourself in their shoes. Walk a mile in their footsteps in this day and age where people like yourself feel this amount of animosity or bigotry towards them. As a pastor you should be the one who's leading people towards love, kindness, and compassion towards others. I cant see how this would considered doing so.

Loren is finally very correct. It is natural to do what we want. God calls the NATURAL state of man depravity. That's why we need Him. And while you mentioned sacrifices that is among the most important historical facts. History or (His-story) teaches us that sacrifice is instituted in the Garden of Eden when Adam (Humanity) and Eve (Life-giver) fell. God clothed their nakedness with animal skins to "cover" their iniquity. In other words they were exposed. Later in His-story we see the institution of the priestly sacrifice of animals as a "covering" for the sins of the nation. The covering is just an object lesson or foreshadow. We learn that the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins is a requirement because life is in the blood. God desires to have eternal fellowship with us His highest creation so He became the sacrifice that totally "removes" our iniquity forever because of the holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the source of life so it is necessary before a holy God that holy blood be shed. No other sacrifice is good enough. Jesus died for you so you could have eternal life. That is great His-story. Cultures who have moved far from God knew of the sacrificial requirement and they under the influence of the enemy of God took it to depravity.

When we accept God He (by His Grace) and Holy Spirit begins the process of change. He leads us to think the way He does. That is where the change comes from. God is personal and we all can get to know him and live better lives because the transformation comes from him! Again the distiction between eros love and agape love needs to be understood. Sorry Jamie God forbids us (His creation) to engage in eros with the same sex. My ministry actually does feed the hungry, clothe the poor, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. We support efforts like tsunami relief and help impoverished people all over the world. That is agape love. Sorry your selfish view of God and His word cause you to conclude that I hate. I promise you that I don't. When we give generously we don't say "make certain that no homosexuals benefit from our giving" No, we share and sacrifice no matter who is in need. My point about the danger caused by changing God's standard is based on the Bible. The book that has offered hope to billions of God's children throughout the ages. I am blessed as well as all bible believing pastors to share the truth about God and His ways with our children so that they will be best prepared to make the best decisions for this life and eternity despite the indifference of the ungodly.

No evidence of evolution? Ever heard of the Galapagos islands or bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? the church seems to be anti science because it threatens the validity of fairy tales.

I feel sad for you that your dogma has blinded you so much to justify discrimination in the way that you do. You pick and choose what parts of the bible were just for the old times (ie. SLAVERY OK) and what parts are the unchanging law of god (HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG) to justify your hate. Its not a selfish view of God, its the opposite. I and other posters here agree that god loves everyone, and that they should have equal rights to everyone else. You say I sound childish, i say you sound hateful and sad. Not one commenter here has agreed with you yet.

Gays are here to stay. It's wonderful for them that society has progressed to the point where they can be true to themselves and lead regular lives. They are members of our society just like you and me. They deserve the same equal rights as everyone else. To say otherwise makes you a bigot.

2 other points I'd like to make:
The church does a lot of great things as you mentioned above, such as helping the homeless, feeding the poor, etc. but that is not a justification for discrimination in other areas. Here you are morally in the wrong.

Also, I'm no bible scholar and I'm not looking to get into a debate, but everything I've read says marriage only became a holy sacrament ion the 9th century, before that it was liturgy. Hardly the unchanging word of god.

Please prove that Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth. I'd like to see some scientific fact please.

Greg,
I do enjoy a good discussion on the the validity of the bible but ultimately we come to the simple impasse that one needs to "accept the holy spirit" or "put your disbelief's aside and have faith in god" in order to believe. You choose to accept that the bible is a work of god and I choose to believe that it is a work of man. We could go back and forth for months and it will not change the fact that you believe you are correct and I believe you are, on this topic, a bigot.

"Do you know the mathematical probability that Jesus Christ fulfilled just by being born to the Virgin Mary (of the line of David), Born in the town of Bethlehem, fled to safety in Egypt, and hung to die on a cross. Something like 1 to the 26th power! Genius I already explained the difference of macro and micro evolution. Your claim about the Galapogos is just plain ignorant. No scientific proof yet about species becoming other species. If there was it would change everything. "

So you've now demonstrated for us your ignorance of mathematics AND evolutionary biology, as well as American history. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own FACTS.

Are there any other fields of knowledge you'd care to misuse? If you'd just stick to faith alone as the undergirding of your religious beliefs, you'd be much more believeable. Still prejudiced and self-serving, but believeable.

David didn't you learn in attack the Christian church school that theories are just that "theories" when they meet the standard of the definition of science they become "law" so who is chasing fairy tales here? You hate God because you know you don't meet his moral standard. You attack me and call me a bigot even though I clearly explained that I am not. Belief in the virgin birth is essential to being in the covenant. The doctrine is connected to freedom from sin nature in Christ. Abraham had to believe in a miraculous birth and resurrection in order to be in covenant with God and pass on the promise through his son; Isaac. We also believe in miraculous birth and resurrection in order to enjoy the covenant promises of God passed on through His son Jesus (name means savior). How could the prophets predict the birth, place, ministry and death of Jesus many hundreds of years before the events? Because a real Holy God spoke through them. Just as he warned against many abhorent sin. Prophets even named historical kings etc before they were ever born. The records were in existence before the events occurred. Sorry, but to say that we are just grown up germs left to determine our own morality is just intellectually absurd. Most people believe in the existence of God and the standard of morality He set. The question raised in the blog is: Should NJ change the biblical definition of marriage and should NJ exclude the language "sacred covenant" in its use. It has been a fine debate.

It's admirable that the posters have been respectful but I really believe this polite debate is a colossal waste of time--there is no common ground here whatsoever. People that interpret the Bible literally, like Pastor Boyle, cannot be reasoned with and will never accept anything that does not align with their dogmatic, tunnel vision view of the world. It does not matter how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution or really anything about the way the natural world works, including the presence of homosexuality in many other species. It is a relief to read other people's words of reason and compassion but don't for a second believe that Pastor Boyle will consider any other point of view and undergo some kind of paradigm shift. It's sad, actually.

seems to me that both sides of the debate can be true. the civil institution of marriage (state/federal law) is a distinct entity from the religious institution of marriage. Civil marraige is a no-brainer. Passage at the state and federal level should occur. Religious marraige can and should be determined by their own private organizations. No religious organization should marry anyone that does not meet their organization's requirements for inclusion. clergy should stay out of the civil marriage conversation. quite franky, it's none of their business.

For more on people like the good pastor here, read about this nutcase:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

David I'm curious how does your god speak to you? And Port rollingstone is a real accredited journal. Way to go your intellect is off the charts. In fact I'm leaning your way as a result of their scholarship.

through love.

Couldn't pass this up: Looking at Boyle's church bio site, I almost fell out of my chair reading (West Orange Detective) Jimmy Torres' bio.
Should we as a community be concerned about the separation of church and state? What kind of working environment does his missionary work at the office create?
http://www.ulovecf.com/Home/Bio

Fair enough, Portmanteau -- thank you for keeping me grounded :)

I notice that the their website is very uninformative. They appear to be just another one of those non-denominational churches that pop out of nowhere. Also, on his bio, I see no evidence whatsoever of his theological training: no seminary listed, no listing of who ordained him, just that he is licensed under Bishop Randolph Gurley, Harvest International Ministerial Fellowship. On their website, the Harvest International Ministerial Fellowship states, "Therefore, we are not a denomination we issue ministerial credentials based on your personal confession of faith in Jesus The Christ as your Savior and your affirmation to follow a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT for clergy".

In other words, you don't have to have a lick of formal theological education of any kind to have Pastor Greg Boyle's post. You just have to 'believe'.

Wow. Pastor Boyle definitely qualifies as an authority on religious quextions. NOT!

Sheesh....Any other self-proclaimed holy men out there have an opinion that we should give a damn about?

Portmanteau-- there are many Christians who are democrats, many republicans my church has both and we have blacks, and whites and asians and latinos and interracial marriages.The less government issue is not even related to the topic here. How bout those prophecies?

Greg,
I understand that people are taking shots at you and your organization but allowing your responses to sink to the level of your past few posts makes you seem less credible. You invited scrutiny when you wrote that piece. You were well aware that your article was inflammatory and your organization would be considered "fringe" by the majority (if you didn't, you really need to step back and take a better look from the outside). You should have been prepared to defend yourself, your organization and your belief system in a calm, polite and rational fashion anything less simply damages you and your organization. JMO.

You have asked many time how to explain the prophecies about Jesus. Simple, they were written and edited over the years to conform the prophecies. You have no more scientific proof about the specifics of Jesus Christ's existence and than I do to support evolution. Both beliefs require an acceptance of unconfirmed theories. While I believe that my beliefs are far more plausible, I will never convince you of that and you will never convince me. What we can argue is whether or not state sanctioned same sex marriage should be legal. I say yes, yes, yes!

Marriages may be arranged in heaven as policeman Greg asserts, But the institution has legal implications in terms of property and inheritance. I want churches out of the governing process. I want cops to respect the rights of citizens. I want the US to quit wasting our hard earned cash on their various foreign and domestic wars. RON PAUL in 2012!

http://montclair.patch.com/articles/a-discussion-of-marriage-equality-is-it-really-equal-2

a nice article up today that shows how Pastor Greg's beliefs are hurting people.

PORT You missed my blog on May 21 titled Judgement Day. I share a bit of the most popular Christian view on eschatology. No trickery here Patch itself dated and posted it on May 21. I understand it is hard to reconcile for someone like you . You will learn that I do not subscribe to Campings view. Kinda like how to explain away prophecies even though secular history acknowledges them. Oh by the way I'm still waiting on the studies proving macroevolution, any thoughts? In fact I feel bad that a misguided leader like Camping represents to any degree Christian community.

I apologize for the drudgery. Some real important topics though have been opened. If anyone would like to learn more about Evolution vs Creation, God and the Constitution.
Biblical prophecy, the doctrine of salvation etc please feel free to email me at ulovecf@gmail.com. I am willing to sponsor any forums where we can meet and discuss areas of concern. This is what America is about

Sorry Pastor, evolution is science. You are confused about the definition of theory in science.

University of California Berkeley has a great resource to explain it to you.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Someone put it quite nicely:
Science implies the start of questions, Faith implies the end of questions

To sell Creationism as as a theory is dishonest. Its a hypothesis at best.

If anyone from the Unconditional Love Christian Fellowship would like to donate their car before the next rapture, please have them send their title and car keys to the following group. It has to be done before October 21st of this year.
http://www.carsforbreastcancer.org/NewJersey

Re marriage: "If it is going to be viewed as a sacred covenant, and it must, then the definition of sacred covenant must be adhered to. "

Just why "must" marriage be viewed as a sacred covenant? In order to marry one must first - first! - apply for a marriage licence from the state in which they live. Whatever happens after that is not the state's interest, nor should it be. If marriages can be officiated by someone like the Mayor of Bloomfield and be legal, then where does "sacred" come in? Are couples married by judges, mayors, ship's captains or whoever else NOT married?

Conversely, in order to disolve a marriage it must - MUST - be done legally with a lawyer or mediator through the state's judicial system. Just where does anything remotely "sacred" enter into it?

Throwing abortion into this argument is apples vs. oranges. It IS possible to be "pro-choice" but not pro-abortion. I know, I am. I cannot expect anyone to live by my rules and beliefs. If I could there would be no wars and no child would ever be alone or go to bed hungry or suffer abuse. (BTW - why aren't those things "sacred" or an issue?)

Marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one. If it was purely religious then atheists, Wiccans, Pagans and/or Druids, etc. couldn't marry. And yet, they do. I've seen pictures and videos from Wiccan ceremonies. That's not a problem for you? Even if it is, it's no one's business but the couple involved.That goes for same-sex couples, or should.

if marriage is "sacred" then shouldn't adulterers be excommunicated?