The way a religion interprets one event and the way a government does can be completely different, as they are with marriage. Some religions don’t recognize divorce for instance. Just like the holiday of Christmas. Christians celebrate it one way but secular people celebrate it differently. Every religion could disappear and be forgotten, but marriage could still exist as a secular institution if people wanted it to.
You’re actually suggesting that religion should have control over our lives by law. Because if religion thinks of a concept first, you’re saying it must then be barred from ever being legally recognized by the government.
That is a good point, a religion may or may not recognize a divorce, but the govt. must.
There is no one defined "religion" and people and mates can change religion.
The bigger point is why do libertarians try to pose such silly and non realistic fantasies as actually being a part of the political argument that we all know we are having, the real life, actually taking place, political and election battle.
No, I am suggesting that the legal and religious concepts are different enough that they deserve different terms.
The sacrament of marriage reflects divine approval for the state, and that chaste behavior can morally include sexual congress within marriage, without damage to one’s soul.
The government is more concerned with inheritance, and taxes. Child support, visitation, and custody are government legal concerns not dependent on marriage or civil union.