It’s no sacrileg, for government marriage has not the pretence of sacredness. Marriage has been a civil institution, too, for millennia. It’s not exactly a chicken and egg situation, since religion predates politics. The religion I assume you’re talking about doesn’t, obviously. But that’s another matter. Suffice to say the two marriages, contract/special legal status and sacrament, can live side by side. They have, for thousands of years, without priests seeming too bent out of shape by it. And there is a compelling state interest in bonding men and women together.
Your argument is inapt for the basic reason that even were marriage redefined to include any old combination that popped into the government’s mind, it wouldn’t redefine marriage religiously. The sacrement would remain, if not the special status of the contract.
About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense, I wonder if you’ve thought that through. Not that it’s nonsense that they can redefine the marriage status they’ve set up, but that that’s some sort of argument against legal marriage. You could say the same thing about criminal law. The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldn’t outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, that’s nutty.
The only relevant context is US law which supported a form of marriage tacitly compatible with Christianity which has since been “redefined” as something incompatible with Christianity.
“Suffice to say the two marriages” are not living side by side.
>> About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense
Not only is the assertion independently accurate, in the statement context, it demonstrates an undeniable fact.
>> but that that’s some sort of argument against legal marriage.
How is the opposition to the definition of marriage something that can be considered an opposition to “legal marriage”? You made a false rendering of my statement.
>> The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldn’t outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, that’s nutty.
Are you suggesting marriage is a crime?
The “law” redefined the value of Life.
Abortion is now the legal killing of nascent human life. In religious circles, it’s considered murder. I call it legal killing. By granting govt the authority to define human life, did we not give it the authority to redefine it; thereby granting it the authority to legally kill it?
Law is not intrinsically good; it is merely the growing necessity of a weakening society.