posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:58 AM
Jeez, this again? sigh.
To the OP:
A religious ceremony in the United States has no legal grounding, whether it is called "marriage" or anything else. In the US, marriage is a secular
legal contract between consenting participants that provides certain legal and tax related properties or benefits.
If you can find a religious institution to perform the ceremony, you can 'marry' your dog or your car or your sock puppet and have a good time.
These "marriages" will have no legal standing, because none of a dog or a car or a sock puppet have the ability to enter into a legal contract. We
cannot communicate well enough with dogs to be able to know for sure they are entering the contract willingly, and dogs have no legal contract status
anyway. Same with inantimate objects such as cars or sock puppets. But you are certainly free to marry one of them if it so pleases you.
The idea that "marriage" is purely a religious artifact is balderdash. I am married and am an Atheist, and am married to one. But because we happen to
be of opposite genders, we can go anywhere in the US and we are still married, with all the legal benefits therein. And religion had and has precisely
ZERO to do with our marriage.
To the apparent point of your opening post, given that this couple has been in the US public eye for some time is reason enough right there to have
sufficient strain on the relationship as to possibly end it. Hell, for all anybody here knows, they are "divorcing" just so people will leave them
So basically your desire to reserve the word "marriage" for only 1 man and 1 woman relationships is rooted in religion and is therefore invalid in the
US. At least so far... the religios are certainly doing their best to turn the US into a theocracy.
ETA: I do agree with the OP on one thing... I do not agree with the term "gay marriage". It should be "marriage", period, without regard to the
relative plumbing of the participants.
edit on 9-2-2012 by Open_Minded Skeptic because: (no reason given)