No, not at all. You have it backwards. The RC church, through its annulment process (avg. $500-$1000), declares secular and non-RC Christian marriages BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN illegitimate. Frequently, the annulment serves to sanitize the petitioner's divorce thus making him/her a good son/daughter of the RC church. What a joke! Ted Kennedy had his first marriage annulled. His is an good example of the corrupt practice.
Your introduction of gay perversion is a not the issue. We can all agree that so-called gay marriage is not a marriage in any case. BTW - if you want to bring homosexuals into the discussion, you can begin by explaining why ths RC church spent and continues to spend multiple millions protecting and shielding its perverted homosexual pedophiles who are priests & bishops. If not for the statute of limitations, thousands of RC priests would be in prison.
The argument is whether a legal marriage between a man and a woman, including those that produced children, can be made null and void simply because the RC church deems it so.
No, it doesn't. All it says is that non-Catholic marriages aren't the Catholic sacrament of Matrimony.
The RC church, through its annulment process (avg. $500-$1000), declares secular and non-RC Christian marriages BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN illegitimate.
A marriage is either a legal marriage or it is not, and it is either a sacramental marriage or not. It can be "legitimate" in either case depending on what you are talking about, or what your priorities are. Are you really trying to tell me that if the Catholic Church says your marriage is not a sacrament in the Catholic Church that you feel threatened by that? And, as an American, are you really arguing that the Catholic Church should be required to define any legal marriage as also being a sacrament? Is your position actually that your own church's rites and definitions should be bound to civil law as well?
Your introduction of gay perversion is a not the issue.
No, I merely responded to what you argued. You stated "...a secular or non-RC marriage is a legitimate marriage. The first institution was marriage - not the church, RC or otherwise." Secular marriage is gay marriage. There is no avoiding that. If you argue that secular marriage supersedes church marriage, and you have, then you must support the legitimacy, to use your phrase, of gay marriage. There is no getting around it.