Good topic @Christy, this is something that has bitten me in the past. I will share my own experience in a couple of situations:
1) Premarital counseling 7+ years ago at a large church. I was supposed to sign something agreeing to pursue memebership, which I could not sign because...
2) Membership at the above church involved agreeing to a statement of faith that affirmed inerrancy (I believe it was the standard definition, without error in all that is affirmed).
For me, this was a deal breaker, and involved not signing either form. As far as fallout, this caused no issue with the marriage, as the pastor doing the marriage class had no problem marrying us anyway (and my fiance also stuck around, who is now my wife and the mother of our three little ones). Of course I could not become a member of the church, so I was consigned to "regular attender". Coming from the "reformed" camp, I have come to peace with being a regular attender at best, wherever I end up, if only because of this issue (which seems to make its way into pretty much every reformed statement of faith).
For the last couple of years we have been going to a smaller church, with many genuine and wise people. It is also "reformed" I would say. I was pleasantly surprised that I could sign the membership covenant because the covenant included that one had read the statement of faith, which itself includes inerrancy, and agreed not to be divisive to its teaching.
As to your question about whether or not it is acceptable to sign based on your "interpretation"...I would personally lean towards no. If it is a valid interpretation, that is one thing, but if it's "interpretation" (emphasis on the quotes) to allow one to sign and move along, then I think I'm against that. I do think some of these statements could stand to be a little less black and white, personally.