More from the link that you gave:

Today, The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church filed their opposition to the motion by Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell to intervene in the consolidated church property cases currently being heard in Fairfax Circuit Court by the Hon. Randy I. Bellows.

In stating their opposition, the Diocese and the Church noted that the Commonwealth had failed to meet the requirements that govern intervention in such a dispute and that the state "lacks any right or interest in the subject matter," namely the property unlawfully occupied by individuals in the CANA breakaway congregations. The Diocese and the Church raised no objections, however, to the Attorney General filing an amicus curiae or friend of the court brief on the matter of the constitutionality of section 57-9 of the Code of Virginia which is at issue at this stage in the case.

The Diocese and The Episcopal Church have argued that it would be unconstitutional for the court to apply section 57-9 in such a way to rule that a division had occurred within the Diocese or the denomination at large.  Such a ruling would be an unconstitutional intrusion by the state into the affairs, doctrine and polity of a hierarchical church.

....is shown by the fact that former Sen. Mims, a member of a breakway church, tried to introduce legislation to guarantee the churches could take the church's property (this was before they voted to leave, so this was done in anticipation of the break). Now he's over at the A.G.'s office trying to accomplish the same thing.

In further support of their opposition to the Attorney General's motion, the Diocese and the Church cited a 2005 letter from the office of then Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann to then Sen. Bill Mims stating that "Constitutional principles dictate the least possible involvement of the state in church matters." Mr. Mims is now Deputy Attorney General, but in 2005, as a senator, Mr. Mims introduced a bill that would have changed section 57-9 and "explicitly allowed congregants leaving national denominations to keep church properties," according to the Diocese's filing.

"As presently in effect [code section] 57-9 has potential constitutional problems," wrote Thomas Moncure Jr., senior counsel to the Attorney General in 2005. "Additionally [code section] 57-9, as currently written, may force the courts to determine if the denomination a congregation seeks to join is actually a branch of the original denomination or a new denomination. While adjudicating the property interests of any unincorporated association - including a church - involves an examination of its internal workings, a court decision over what is or is not a branch of an original denomination necessarily entangles government and religion. Constitutional principles dictate the least possible involvement of the state in church matters."

At the time the legislation was under consideration by the General Assembly, Mr. Mims was a member and senior warden of Church of the Holy Spirit, Ashburn, one of the Virginia missions that since has quit The Episcopal Church. The bill was pulled by Mr. Mims in the face of intense opposition from Senate colleagues, editorial writers and at least a dozen faith communities, including the United Methodists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Jewish community and The Episcopal Church, who saw it as a dangerous incursion by the state into religious matters.

While I am sure most readers of RK know this, wanted to make sure it was clear that the churches involved in the litigation in which the A.G. wants to intervene left the Episcopal Church due to consecration of a bishop in New Hampshire who was gay.  These churches who left the Episcopal Church are opposed to gay clergy of any kind, and  are now seeking to keep church's  property (e.g. the church buildings) for themselves.   So why would the A.G. care about getting involved as a party in all this?  The answer is obvious.

While I am sure most readers of RK know this, wanted to make sure it was clear that the churches involved in the litigation in which the A.G. wants to intervene left the Episcopal Church due to consecration of a bishop in New Hampshire who was gay.  These churches who left the Episcopal Church are opposed to gay clergy of any kind, and  are now seeking to keep church's  property (e.g. the church buildings) for themselves.   So why would the A.G. care about getting involved as a party in all this?  The answer is obvious.

I should have qualified the previous comment with "in my opinion".

I should have qualified the previous comment with "in my opinion".

Republican dogma at present is confused about the entire constitutional separation of Church and State as pertains to every aspect of political life, including a cockamanie idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, not to mention the cockamanie idea that evolution and the age of the Earth itself as taught in public schools should be modified by whatever they think Genesis says.  

In other words, our Attorney General is just as much of a nutcase as the rest of the far right wing evangelicals, and is a danger to the well-ordered running of government in a plural society like ours. He should take his theocratic a*s off to Nigeria where it would look quite normal, and he himself would be more comfortable attending services.  

McDonnell (McConnell, whatever) is an embarrassment to the Commonwealth, using his political office and rank to intervene in such as matter.

Hope this turn of events clarifies why many people have grave concerns about these breakaway churches.  It is not just a matter of being able to practice one's religion as one sees fit, which is fine.  The problem is that in order to keep the property, they are taking their personal religious views into the political arena, a game plan which goes back a couple of years.  I found this today, published on InRich.com,  about McDonnell's intention to intervene in support of the breakaway churches:

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/...