If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?

is the government involved at all to make it official?If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
What needs to be done is to completely dissociate religious marriage from civil marriage. Where I come from the ONLY marriage recognized by civil law is the civil marriage officiated by a justice of the peace or judge in a court room and that is the ONLY marriage with legal implications.





After that if you want to get married by the church or the satanic rite or the order of the aliens of outer space it's your business. YET if you don't get a civil marriage your other whatever ritual marriage carries no legal implications.





Separate church and state once and for all.If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
Marriage is the foundation of family, and family is the foundation of society, therefore a societies government should be involved in a positive and constructive way to officially sanction and preserve marriage. Much of the official nature of marriage has to do with all the benefits granted to married men and women. Don't confuse the religious nature of the ceremony and meaning of marriage with societies collective support of the institution. Good government should always be involved in maintaining and strengthening the foundation of the society which it governs.
Because the religious institution of marriage cannot affect a citizen's tax filing status and other matters involved with the state, church and state are separate. So really, their is the religious AND the state aspect of marriage.





Simple solution: give gays the same rights, just don't call it a marriage. Those that insist that it has to be called a marriage only want to upset religious people, it has nothing to do with rights at that point. If they want the same rights, they should get them, but I don't see how gays have a right to redefine a religious sacrament.
Government is involved because we have allowed it to be. In my opinion, marriage ought to be a matter of personal contract among individuals (2 or more and of whatever gender suits the individuals). Government only needs to be involved from the standpoint of determining tax rates and other mandated benefits. It is also involved to the extent that it regulates behavior between individuals (for instance, employer benefits).





As you may know from my Q%26amp;A, I oppose all of these government interventions for their own sake. Eliminating them, individuals could embark upon whatever relationships that they wanted without caring what the government called them.
Actually, marriage is strictly a legal institution regulated by the government in the LEGAL sense. Only the government performs or dissolves a marriage legally.





Government authorizes various professional people - judges, mayors, ship captains, religious officials - to perform the marriage ceremony. However, even if a religious official (priest, rabbi, minister, imman, monk, or whatever) officiates at the marriage ceremony, he or she is actually also marrying on behalf of the State only because he is also authorized by the government to do so (the reason for them saying ';by the power vested in my by the State of New York';).





That being said, many religions also recognize some form of religiously governed ';marriage';. The government in the USA is not permitted to interfere and each religious body marries whom it wants according to its own rules. For example, Catholic churches do not allow divorced people to re-marry. Orthodox Jews do not permit a Jew and a non-Jew to marry, etc. Unitarian Universalists and some UCC Churches marry same sex couples now - whether or not the government in that particular location recognizes it. So, religious marriage CAN be in line with LEGAL marriage, often it is not.





The end of a marriage also illustrates this point equally well. When a court approves a the end of a marriage (divorce), the marriage no longer legally exists from a legal standpoint. Religious groups may or may not recognize the divorce (the end of the marriage). Some protestants do, some don't. The Catholic church does not. Jews do, but some require a separate procedure (';get';) for the divorce to be religiously valid. However, the religious view is irrelevant from a legal standpoint, as the two people are no longer married to each other in the legal sense and are free to marry like other singles.





If we were to keep in mind that ';legal marriage'; and ';religious marriage'; are separate institutions, I think the the entire debate around this issue would be less inflamed.
Because nearly all churches and religious orgs are 501c3 non profit corporations, which are created by The State. And the government looks upon marriage as a commercial contract. Face it, our society has been so infiltrated by government it's like Alien. I can't wait for it to chew its way our of our chests.
And as such my friend if the government retains the right to issue marriage licenses then the people who elect said government have the right to decide who gets them and who doesn't.





Not that I give a ratsass who you love and want to marry and will vote against any law that takes rights away from my fellow citizens.





edit: @hopelessly single-can you tell me of a time when man was not constrained by one form of religion or another? Please?
You are asking the same questions that Dick Cheney just answered from his prejudiced standpoint; since his daughter is gay. Of course, if I was a female and Dick Cheney was my Dad, I might approach this gay marriage issue differently. If you know what I mean?





But, marriages in the earlier history of mankind were considered the business of the churches. Why must it be changed now? To placate the desires of a minority of people who choose to reject the norms of the societies in which they live?
I think the claim is only that the term comes from the religious institution.





I'm for freedom and think homosexuals have an opportunity here to be creative and coin their own term for their unions.





You have a bicycle and a motorcycle. They are different yet similar.
It isn't. It's a civil contract with financial implications. So the answer is simple. All ';civil contract'; marriages should be open to all.





Churches can decide who/what can be married in their church.





Perhaps church marriages should be renamed into ';holy marriage'; or some such.
Actually marriage has always been a cultural and religious institution. It has not been practiced uniformly, either. The American description is religious, and nothing else. If there is a true separation of church and state, the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Because it isn't. Marriage has been part of life long before modern religion. And if it was, we should all be getting civil unions, and if you want to have it ';blessed'; into a marriage, that's your choice.
It's not unless you make it; its primary purpose is about taxes and family wealth distribution. It never ceases to amaze me that gays would want to get involved w. anything so sordid!
becuz property and such after a divorce or such is upheld in gov courts
BINGO





where in the Constitution does it give such authority to the government?





IT DOESNT!
Because the government will get its grubby hands on anything you let it.
Most people, religious or not are against Gay marriage.





Most people, religious or not have morals, ya know.
Commie.





You shall be crushed by the weight of the American Empire!