In many countries, civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage. I got married in Mexico. My wife and I had had to have a civil ceremony, presided over by a judge, in addition to our Nuptual Mass.
Heterosexual marriage serves a secular, social purpose. It's great that religions sanctify the institution, but it is not only a religious institution.
That's why the libertine proposal to "get government out of the marriage business" is so absurd.
Agreed. It was that way when I was married in Turkey, also (yes, to another American). Is what you're suggesting that ministers no longer perform marriage ceremonies for the State (either by choice or by law)?
Heterosexual marriage serves a secular, social purpose. It's great that religions sanctify the institution, but it is not only a religious institution.
Agreed. And as long as it appears that we can preserve marriage to be between one man and one woman, this is the only arrangement that should be sanctioned by the State. Having said that, unless you see some major cultural jolt moving our society, and particularly the youth of our society back to a worldview that you and I would agree is a "moral" one, I cannot see any circumstance where the current trend will be reversed. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see how.
That's why the libertine proposal to "get government out of the marriage business" is so absurd.
OK, but I think we somehow have a disconnect between ideals and reality. As I said in my earlier post, marriage is hardly the sanctified institution it once was, irregardless of homosexual "marriage" (or unions or whatever you want to call it).
I don't see much holy about the State institution of marriage (if it was truly holy, there wouldn't be that 50% divorce rate). I am concerned about the religious sacrament, as, at least in some places, there is an attempt to keep it as a sanctified arrangement that it should be.