[JesusIsLord]

BTW, I think in your first post here, you meant "palpable," not "palatable..

My mistake. You are correct.

You assert, "there's a difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage". What the RC church fails to acknowledge is that a secular or non-RC marriage is a legitimate marriage. The first institution was marriage - not the church, RC or otherwise. That's the point that's missed!

The RC church's presumption that it can annul a legal marriage is an example of an arrogance and falseness that Christians have come to reject.

[maryz]

In a Church annulment, the Church declares only that the marriage didn't meet the standard for a valid sacramental marriage. It says nothing about the legality or validity of the civil marriage.

[avenir]

“What the RC church fails to acknowledge is that a secular or non-RC marriage is a legitimate marriage. The first institution was marriage - not the church, RC or otherwise. That’s the point that’s missed!”

Excellent point.

[cothrige]

What the RC church fails to acknowledge is that a secular or non-RC marriage is a legitimate marriage. The first institution was marriage - not the church, RC or otherwise. That's the point that's missed!

Okay, so secular marriage is legitimate and church definitions are not. And that would mean, in this secular country, that gay marriage is the legitimate definition of marriage, and that traditional definitions such as those espoused by various churches would be illegitimate. And, therefore if a church says that a gay couple are not married, they are then attempting to nullify a legal marriage, which is evil. Correct? Am I missing something in this secular marriage is legitimate argument?