You cannot ignore the fact that the legal institution of marriage has one purpose: to protect the children resulting from that marriage. There is a whole body of law existing for that purpose, consisting of laws to ensure the legal distribution of property among the surviving spouse and progeny of that marriage, to ensure that property stays within the biological family, to ensure that the children are cared for, etc., in the case of the death of one spouse.
A religious marriage with no legal foundation does not give any legal standing to resulting children. If both parents should die and there is no legal framework in place, those children are thrust upon the mercy of strangers—or they are thrown in the middle of family squabbles as the relatives fight over who gets to keep the wealth and who is stuck with the kids. Yes, I know, people should have a will—but how many actually do?
Since secular marriage is about the legal framework existing to protect the children of such a marriage, the Supreme Court ruling that there is such as thing as same-sex “marriage” is nonsensical. Homosexual “friendships” cannot result in children, and homosexual lifestyles are inimical to the raising of children. Thus, for homosexuals to claim to be married is an impossibility.
It is outrageous that the Supreme Court decided to invalidate real marriage to appease the mentally ill delusions of 1-2% of the population.
Exactly correct!!! A State Marriage License is the entrance of a contract between a man, a woman, and the State it was issued in. That license exists for the sole purpose of entering into the contract with the State, which then defines what happens according to State Law, when a married couple divorces.
That is ALL a Marriage License is for.
I've long lobbied for the end of "State Marriage Licenses" and for Christians to enter into the Holy Union of Marriage with the blessing of their Priest/Pastor/Deacon presiding over the ceremony and completely skipping getting a State License.
The Church would certainly recognize the marriage as existing, the State on the other hand would not, and the State would be deprived of the "Marriage License" revenues from Christian Heterosexual couples.
There are also income tax implications in this scenario, which I'll skip for the time being.