Here in my state, New South Wales, Australia, we have a government department known as the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages. That's where we go to get legally married. Don't US states have equivalent departments?
Your belief that is not a marriage is irrelevant to the law or to a religion that allows for same sex marriage. Those marriages still exist regardless of whether you accept them or not.
Yes. Be that as it may, you are saying that if the 14th Amendment has now been interpreted as allowing two men or two women to get married, then prior to 2015, any marriage law which restricted marriage to a man and a woman was, as it turns out, unconstitutional for all those hundreds of years! which is bloody nonsense. No, you misread his post. Actually there was no constitutional issue with DOMA.
Nope. Various agencies hold those records, usually on a state or country level, versus a federal level.
My definition of Religion would be "Man;s effort to reach God." Some denominations come under that heading. While true Believers and a lot of "denominations" but not all, look to the fact God made an effort to reach mankind. All we have to do is receive.
Which is irrelevant to what we are discussing, which is marriage in the US. It is a legal institution. A religious ceremony that isn’t legally recognized is meaningless.
Religious marriage should be left to the churches and they should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, legal marriage should be and is extended to all non-related adults that can consent to a civil document.
Well @rahl isn't saying that religious marriage shouldn't be left to the churches, because in order to believe that they would have to believe that religious marriage actually exists to begin with, which of course they don't.
Well they become civil unions automatically whether the couple likes it or not after they've lived together for a certain period of time, right?
What if a state made a new law tomorrow which outlawed same sex marriage. Would that be unconstitutional in light of SCOTUS's interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Obergefel v Hodges?
I will never refer to homosexual unions as TRUE marriage, but I will concede that it is a marriage under LAW. How would it "COMPROMISE the higher law?"
Except that the basic principle for allowing same sex marriage is that due to a character trait (homosexuality) homosexuals can't get married in the traditional way, so therefore they shouldn't be discriminated against. What is the character trait that would render someone with the only option of marrying their relative? It seems to me that to call consanguineous marriage unconstitutional is no more valid than calling underage marriage unconstitutional. You seem to be taking the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause slightly too far.
Common law marriage is currently only allowed in seven states plus DC. I was incorrect about it not applying to same sex couples, several states didn’t recognize tem as common law married immediately after the SCOTUS ruling but those states have either relented or ended the practice of common law marriage all together (Alabama and South Carolina).