Religious wedding ceremonies produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law.) Non-religious wedding ceremonies produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law). I don't even understand your concept of "separate" - of course they are separate in that they are done in different locations. They both produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law).
Personal marriage (which some people consider to be their religious marriage because they live it in accordance with religious rules) and legal marriage are what are separate. I explained this about 2 pages back as to what they would be referring to.
The wedding ceremony takes place before there is a marriage, don't really understand your reference to a personal marriage. What do you mean by personal or impersonal? What has that got to do with how/where the ceremony took place?
Not everyone requires a ceremony before there is a real marriage. In fact, it is quite common in the military for a couple to simply get a marriage done by the JOP for the area that they are in, and then do an actual wedding ceremony afterward, usually in their home state. They are legally married prior to having an actual wedding ceremony, since they do not consider the JOP signing a ceremony.
Huh? What "either" could exist without the other one? If you are talking about "religious ceremonies" and "non-religious ceremonies" - yes, they could exist without the other but that is not what the people of America want. There are many that do not want a "religious ceremony" and many that do, so the states provide you the opportunity to choose.
Personal marriage and legal marriage, not just the ceremonies. Either can exist without the other, but most of the time they both exist parallel in a couple's life, especially in the US.
According to me, what? You don't break out your response, so I really don't know what you are referring to.
Considering that was not anywhere in my post, I don't know what you are talking about. I looked at the post I made and couldn't find the quote that was supposed to be mine within that post that you are responding with this to.
And who said anything contrary to that? The government doesn't really care where a couple gets married. Only that it is done according to law, so that you can reap the benefits that come with marriage, and that applies to "legal marriages". Ceremonies performed in psuedo churches, without licenses do not produce legal marriages and the couples in these type of marriage are not eligible for the benefits that go with marriages.
You're right that to get benefits, the government has to recognize the marriage, but that doesn't mean that people don't get married without the license. There are religions, including denominations of Christianity, that will wed couples without a marriage license. They do this because their own religious beliefs conflict with the marriages that the government will recognize but in order to live as a married couple in accordance with their religious beliefs, they need to be recognized as married by their church.
Also, it is wrong to call any church a "pseudochurch" (unless they are something like Pastafarian). Just because they have different beliefs than you do, does not mean that they are a false religion or church, even if they consider themselves to be part of the Christian faith. Different sects of Christianity believe different things, including what marriage is and whether marriage can be between two men or two women or involve more than 2 people. Christianity, at its core, is simply believing that Christ is the Messiah who died for your sins and believing in his teachings, it doesn't necessarily mean that a person has to believe every part of the Bible. Also, their ceremonies are just as valid to them as your religious ceremonies are to you.
Duh! Who said anything different? Even if you don't have a fancy ceremony, the very act of some official/clergy signing the license "before authorized witnesses" can be considered a ceremony.
I would consider the two things separate. Especially since signing the license is usually done after the wedding, not during. The signing is not usually a part of the ceremony.
Plus, as I said above, there are a lot of couples who get a legal marriage before they have a wedding ceremony, but they still have both and would generally consider refer to their wedding as the ceremony, not the simple signing of their license.
The marriage doesn't become legal until it is recorded in the court house. If a state or church allows the wedding before a license is produced, it will not become legal until a license is obtained, signed, witnessed and returned to the court to be recorded.
For most states, yes. But there are some exceptions.
And common law marriages are even recognized by the IRS.
Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common Law Marriage
Common Law Marriage
And? We are talking about what makes a marriage legal now, not back when Adam and Eve got together.
Yes, but marriage is different for different people. Just because you consider it a real marriage only if it is a legal marriage does not mean that is how others view it. In fact, there are many religions that believe it can only be a real marriage if the couple lives by certain religious rules, whether they are legally married or not.
Marriage is both a personal and legal institution. Being involved in either is all that is needed for some to consider a couple as married. The legal is all that is required for the US government to consider a couple married. And, there are some religions where the personal is all that is required to consider a couple married. Most couples have both.
Big deal, they are not married according to the state, and that is what reaps the government benefits. In the eyes of the state and those that know their marriage is not legal, they are still not married, no matter how much they love each other and how many vows they repeat.
That is why gays are seeking SSM. If all they wanted was to be recognized as being married they would just opt for the psuedo ceremonies, but they want to be able to claim the benefits that only come with "legal" marriages.
They are not legally married, but they are still married. As I have been saying legal marriage and personal marriage are separate things. Which is exactly why the government has no business denying SSM, since marriage can be a personal institution as well as a legal one. And the legal one is nothing more than a contract.
They may be considered married by everyone in the world, but if they don't have a legal marriage, they cannot claim the government benefits afforded legal married couples.
If they were considered married by everyone in the world, that would include the government and judges, so they would have a legal marriage.
BTW, many common law marriages afford many if not all those same government benefits.
We're not talking about pseudo ceremonies - we are talking about "legal" marriages.
A Christian church who performs "psuedo" ceremonies is not obeying the ordinances of God, who tells us we must obey our government. For a marriage to be legal, it must follow the rules set by the state. So, to call themselves Christian is mockery.
Romans 13:1-2
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.
Who are you to say whose religious ceremonies should be considered false ceremonies? You may have your own beliefs, but so do other people. Other people may believe that Jesus was the son of God/Messiah and died for their sins but only choose to follow what Jesus taught and nothing more from the Bible. They would still be Christians. They may not be your kind of Christians, but they are still Christians.
Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Christian (help·info) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Greek word Christ, a translation of the Hebrew term Messiah.[1]
Christian - definition of Christian by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Notice how none of those definitions include the necessity that a Christian or a church that claims to be Christian must adhere to everything within the Bible, only the belief in Jesus as the son of God and his teachings.
