< "At that point of time in history, the Church of England had not broken it's ties with the Church of Rome." >
According to this white paper: www.i-acuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/...
Its clear or, I feel it should be by now, that "the Queen" (as a Corporation sole of, the Church of England) remains "registered with" the Roman curia and as such, is under the law of, the sovereign. (The Pope.)
You can break ties with the sovereign? You can tell him (the Pope), that you don't want to be under his law, anymore?
Is both America and Australia, a "Christian" country?
Forgetting the (other) "issues" in regards to 'Arthur marrying Jim' and not Martha - in a Christian society, the "law" (itself), still remains. No?
< In this marriage license system created by the Reformed tradition, the state and the church have separate but complementary roles to play in advancing a religious (read Christian) society. >
[Corporate governments themselves must also answer to, corporate law and ultimately, the "power" behind that corporate law.]
A point made is, that, in the U.S., "the secular state's regulation of the sexual life of its citizens is actually religion by other means." All of this aligns, generally speaking, with Winnifred F. Sullivan's recent remark that "[e]stablishment, not free exercise, is the natural way of government, in the United States and elsewhere."
This form of establishment, for example, helps explain why religious leaders can simultaneously serve as public officials while conducting weddings in their religious roles and in religious settings. >
< The Christian Reconstruction movement seeks, as John Calvin did centuries prior, to have government operate from a Christian basis, even though the church remains separate and independent.
In other words...
Davis is fundamentally opposed to the disestablishment of marriage and that is the cause of her freedom of religion claims that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear. She wants civil marriage to remain, at its roots, a form of religious marriage. Davis's claim that she was refusing to issues marriage licenses under "God's authority" is not as bizarre as it initially sounds. >
Kim Davis was imprisoned (and since released) because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Perhaps the article header should read:
"What Kim Davis Knows (Or Thinks She Knows) About the LAW?"
The full William E. Smith story:
religiondispatches.org/what-kim-davis-kn.../
mmmm