If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:
a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
You may respond, "Yes, but marriage has such a clear positive effect for society that it is reasonable to give it legal acknowledgment and benefits." If that is the case, then, certainly, the same can be said for church attendance. Should you get legal benefits for that as well?
The religion issue is irrelevant. Priests are generally notary pulblics who execute the marriage license. No government agency recognizes a "religious" ceremony.
The institution of marriage is the model we use to raise children. If government is removed from marriage, then government must be removed from all issues of all forms of property since marriage follows inheritances and property interests.
If you follow Dean's statement. You "observations" are exactly in line with is view point. The democrats would like nothing more than to make no marriage recognized ONLY civil unions are recognized under the law.
Homosexuals have no special right to marry. They can execute the same legal documents an unmarried couple can choose to do. This whole judgement is based on the flawed notion that marriage is just about love.
If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
That is a logical conclusion. It's fair for the state to require registration after the fact, for legal record-keeping, tax purposes, etc., but it's wrong for the government to pretend to be God and grant or withhold permission by "licensing" marriages. No license is required to start a newspaper or print a book; surely marriage is at least as fundamental a human right.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
Only if the religion claims exclusive right to preside over the ceremony. That's certainly not the case of Christianity (the Bible records several marriages performed without clergy: e.g. Issac's marriage to Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), some Christians' mistaken views to the contrary notwithstanding.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
Again, only if the religion claims such; which Christianity does not. The only restrictions of this sort that the Bible places on marriage is that Christians may not marry outside the faith.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
Again, only if the particular religion says the state has no right to recognize marriage legally, and there's nothing like that in the Bible. The state may, and should, add its recognition of marriage to the biblical one, but it may not legitimately supplant it, e.g., by requiring licenses.