BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:02 PM

Gays want to impose their moral choices on people too. That's the point here, it's all choice. You're not 'born a Jew', you choose to follow that belief system. The same with Christians. And gays choose to behave in a certain way.

And none of those groups has the right to impose its choices on others. You can't say 'God' in school, but your textbooks tell you about Johnny's two mommies. That's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:21 PM

What does Jesus have to do with how the people of the world form their domestic partnerships?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:23 PM

I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are same-sex oriented, and I ("straight" and married--to a woman--for the past 37 years) have never had any of them try to impose their moral choices on me.

It's the "straight" folks--and so-called Christians--who are trying to impose their moral choices on gays.

In what way is what a gay couple get up to in the privacy of their own home imposing their moral choices on you, Guest? Why are you so concerned with what they are up to?   Eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:41 AM

Again, what I find fascinating is that nasty bigots, especially those hiding under a cloak of religion always get around to sex as opposed to marriage when discussing gay people.

Why?

What is the fascination eh?

Ignorance is no excuse for posting hate. Pray tell us how you get it up and the kinky games you and your spouse get up to or keep quiet and remember that this is a thread that celebrates not deplores a legal landmark in a country often bereft of such advances.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 04:39 AM

How the good people of the US construct their legislation is no concern of mine, but the redefinition of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority, is bad for society. As guest has said, it opens a Pandora's box containing incest, group "marriage", open "marriage, and many other types of sexual behaviour which are in the long term destructive to society.

Someone above keeps saying that all opponents of "gay marriage" are obsessed by the sexual aspect, that is ridiculous, as "gays"(homosexuals) are defined by their sexual activity....if it was not for their sexual preference, there would be no need to redefine marriage.

I am opposed to homosexual "marriage", just as I was opposed to the criminalisation of the practice some years ago, there are people who have different sexual preferences, and if they wish to pursue them and both parties or group consent, then they should be allowed to do so, but legislation in favour of such a practice is totally different.

The sexual health figures for male homosexuals in the UK and US are horrific....the latest for new infections of HIV and most other STD's have risen to over 70% of all new infections, this amongst a group who make up only 1.5% of the population.
Why is this the case?....There have been no studies done, but it must have something to do with the nature of homosexuality and until we understand why these figures are so bad, we should be wary of bringing this behaviour into mainstream society through the legislative process.

Additionally, in countries where homosexual "marriage", or civil union has been adopted, it has been found that homosexual attitudes to monogamy in marriage, have in many cases devolved into "open" relationships, where the two original partners have other purely sexual partners, completely destroying the positive aspects of marriage as a vehicle to bring up a family and construct a recognisable society.
The question of children and the best way to bring them up is at the root of this issue, and children have been conveniently forgotten by those who press for this legislation.
Society demands more than individual freedom of expression, it demands responsibility for what we create.

I will have nothing further to say on this matter, insults or trolling will not be responded to ....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:22 AM

Your last comment says it all.

If you are ashamed of what you type, son't type it you disgusting lying bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:43 AM

"you disgusting lying bastard"
.,,.

The usual o-so-absolutely-convincing response to any of Ake's posts.

That Musket -- he really has an incomparable way with words, innit!

≈M≈

Usual caveat: I am expressing no opinion, pro or anti, as to Ake's points & opinions. Just deplore as ever the priggish self-righteous, know-it-all, minds·made·up·no·facts·please responses his invariably statistically based and supported posts always receive from the OK · PC · right·thinking·lefty · shout·down·the·opposition brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:43 AM

It is interesting that a homophobic person brings children into the debate, casting even further doubt on the character of gay people. (We have moderators and we have gay members, so lies about gay people should come under moderation.)

Everybody's story is different. Many people are marrying who years ago would have had to suppress their sexuality, often with disastrous results. I can never forget the plight of a lad called Bruce, who I was acquainted with when I spent more time in London. He had moved south to get away from his father who sexually abused him. His father in the meantime was rather forthright in his condemnation of gay people.

Bruce never stood a chance and suffered as a result. Like many who see London as a salvation, he moved back to where he came from, knowing he had to keep his sexuality a secret from his father and his father's abuse of him a secret from the family. His health, especially his mental health was compromised.

The removal of stigma of your sexuality helps people to be full members of society, and just like with race, disability and gender, sexual orientation is a part of society, not a problem of it.

It really doesn't help when someone feeds hatred and lies in the way Akenaton has in his post above. if it weren't for doubts as to his understanding of issues, it would be distressing for some Mudcat members to open this thread and read his comments.

As I said, that is why we have moderation, hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 06:25 AM

No Michael, he confronts criminals rather than appeases them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 06:45 AM

Who does?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:01 AM

Damn. I wish that breadhead Mither would stop saying things I agree with. Still, it's usually only on a few topics, like bigotry and religion (not sure that that is not a tautology).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:13 AM

That Musket bloke

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:33 AM

Why, how valiant, to be sure! What these 'criminals' actually armed with, as a matter of interest, apart from Word Processor, & opinions that some pretentious prigs might purport to find uncongenial?...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:54 AM

I am at a loss to see how standing up for equal treatment is "imposing" on anyone else... or is fair treatment under the law the "imposition"?

I've never been sexually harassed by a homosexual individual... which is more than I can say for heterosecual males...

and if I had been, why should I condemn them all for the BS of a few? I don't regard all males as jerks, I let them prove it first. :)

and let's get another thing straight (so to speak)... it is NOT a choice on anyone's part to be either homo- or hetero- sexual. The only "choices" are whether to hide it, accept it, or end it by suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:01 AM

Incitement to hatred, Michael. Its what the politicians you and I vote for passed into law. Publishing lies in order to villify a section of society is a criminal offence in The UK.

Akenaton published his hatred from The UK. Granted, the legal requirement for removing it comes from whatever laws prevail in The USA but he is culpable where he resides. Free speech does not include published hatred.

As ever, I reported a link to this page via my ISP provider, who pass it to the police. Under existing treaties, similar to the ones where paedophiles were caught purchasing child porn, The US authorities could require Mudcat to pass the IP of the alleged criminal on. I gave them his actual name and location anyway.

To be honest, they have enough on their plate to be bothered to chase the little people who don't actually influence anyone but if you don't try to get this shocking behaviour stamped out, many decent people will remain being abused by reading hate. Teenagers especially have been known to commit suicide through reading hatred aimed at them.

If you can type out questioning my reaction, why not question his stance? Perhaps linking gay with "protect children" or the bit about married gay people sre promiscuous anyway so why allow them to marry? Or even ask why he puts "marriage" when he should type marriage?

Sadly, he is a UK subject, living in a country where a political party he claims to be a member of presided proudly over introducing gay marriage anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

I don't perceive his posts as you do, Ian. I have several times explained why, and do not propose to seek it all out to refresh &c.

I have explicitly declared myself neutral as to the content of his assertions, but deplore your efforts to silence him on matters which I can in no way perceive him at fault for urging. The legislation you refer to was not intended to stifle reasonably expressed rational debate, which is what you seem to me to be trying to do, with your blusterings about criminal behaviour which you propose to bring to the attention of the competent authorities, & all that sort of vainglorious bullfrogging.

It is clearly a matter on which our mileages vary, as the phrase has it.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:02 AM

ake says he will not be back to this... but if he is reading, I will repeat what I said above.

"It makes no difference whether 'marriage' was usually between a man and a woman. That is not a 'definition', no matter what conservatives would like it to be!"

again... the idea of 'redefining' is rhetoric to pretend there ever was a formal definition. It was commonly assumed that it meant man & woman, but that is not the point.
The point is: part of the human race IS gay, and not the 'tiny minority' that Ake suggests. They form bonds and live in situations almost identical to straight couple. They need the same legal rights as anyone else, for insurance, inheritance, taxes, buying a house, etc...etc. The 'state' controls the legal details of those issues, so what else should it be called to formalize the situation? 'Marriage' simply recognizes the partners' commitment, whether there is a religious component or not.
   NOTHING about it interferes with straight couples living their lives in their way!

It is just a matter of fairness and common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:08 AM

Times change as do people and laws.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:31 AM

FWIW I agree entirely with what Bill D sez just above.

But that does not justify attempts to suppress, by a combination of unjustified denunciations and threats, Akenaton's (or indeed anybody's) right moderately to express a contrary view.

I am surprised at the efforts made by many on this and similar threads to endeavour, from unworthy ·OK · PC · right-on · tendentious · lefty· motives, to obviate the right of free speech on the matters subsisting in the topic. I consider such efforts despicable.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:45 AM

"if you don't want an abortion, don't have one ,   if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, fine..." said bill
.....if you don't want to murder your mother, don't do so, if you don't want to marry your donkey, fine"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:53 AM

Not comparable, Pete. Murder is covered by laws about human rights, and donkeys can't have an informed opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:01 PM

Not only not comparable, but completely idiotic.


As expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

Imposing the concept of "free speech" is a two way street- expressing ones personal disgust with the views of another would be included. If you are too sensitive, or closed minded, to hear the opposing view, common sense dictates one should resist the temptation to incite such views by posting on certain topics. Commenting on the topic and running away is a lame game, mostly by those who wish to spread their views without broad discussion from other perspectives, IMO. It bring an impression of "closed minds" from my experience.

However, with that in mind, civil discussion and mutual respect is a common courtesy that leads to a fruitful airing of views. Where is is absent, my expectations are low.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:11 PM

I make one exception for Bill.

Marriage was not "usually" between a man and a woman, it was ALWAYS between a man and a woman.....therefore it has been redefined.
1% of the population (Office of Statistics UK) is a tiny minority, and certainly not worth the redefinition of an important institution.

On the subject of our deranged member, If I was publishing anything criminal, untrue, or hateful, I am quite sure PC Plod would have chapped my door by now, I have been expressing my views on this issue for years.
What is disturbing, is that this creature seems to have acquired my personal details, which is strange as only two trusted friends here know my name or where I live.
I hope that the information has not come from admin, if that is the case I will retire from the forum immediately.

Stalking of course, is a criminal offense, but I would not lower myself to Ian's level....his posts are a fine example of his character.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:13 PM

[marriage] was ALWAYS between a man and a woman.

Please substantiate this claim.

I hope that the information has not come from admin

That's right, Pharoah - Max done sold you out.   Get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:14 PM

Pete's actually making the point he's possibly trying to refute. There are non-religious laws against those things.

In the US, it used to be illegal in some states for people of different races to marry, but that was done away with when folks got a little more enlightened and concerned with civil rights.

It's still illegal (Constitutionally) to make one particular religion the official one, though, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, despite those who desire a Christian version of sharia law.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:32 PM

The anti-"miscegenation" law is still on the books in Alabama, and a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still support anti-miscegenation laws.

There's the "new south" fer ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM

Homosexual behavior is a choice. Strong compulsion to screw someone of your own sex can be controlled. It's not hardwired into you and it's not genetic. It is a way of thinking. And thought to action can be controlled. One man does not have to screw another, but he may choose to.

The same is true of religion. The religion you practice, you choose to practice.

In the United States, the homosexual special interest group is getting away with things not allowed other groups. If the behavior of homosexuality can be taught in public schools, then why not the behavior of praying?

You progressives honestly won't be able to justify what's being done on the homosexual front. It is not fair, and your 'tolerance' of homosexuals is supposed to be about fairness. It is in truth about unfairness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Well, that's ignorant. You might have successfully resisted the desire to love people of the same sex in the past and currently, but you're always going to keep doing so. And if love is about fucking somebody, that's all you're going to get.

Greg, apparently Loving v. Virginia overturned them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:00 PM

"Homosexual behavior is a choice."

Let say for argument's sake that this statement can stand... then it should also stand that heterosexual behavior is a choice. And so is celibacy, for that matter.   

So why the desire to restrict freedom of choice???? We are discussing adults and adult behavior, which is really nobody's business except their own... provided the behavior is limited to said partners and does not cause grave physical harm. I think we can live with a few hickeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:10 PM

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Old laws no longer applicable may remain on the books, since their removal must be voted on. Legislators don't waste their time doing this, since the laws cannot be invoked or acted upon if they have been rendered void by Court actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:55 PM

I will try to suppress it Michael.

Every time and no surrender.

Inciting hatred is no free speech. Saying gay people remain promiscous is not a view, it is a lie to support inequality. Putting the word marriage in parantheses is not a view, it is an attempt to pervert equality. Saying that children need protecting from gay men is not a view, it is beneath contempt.

Whilst you are at it, don't forget to support the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema and watch the squashed bodies being brought out in body bags. Don't forget to support terrorists making videos to impress young men. Don't forget to support Akenaton's right to cause distress to gay people on Mudcat.

Oh, you didn't forget, did you.

😢

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:31 PM

""marriage' was usually between a man and a woman""


""In the USA, slaves were usually denied the opportunity to learn to read or write, to ensure that they did not form aspirations that could lead to escape or rebellion""

Both statements use the word "usually"- neither statement is a logical reason why situations cannot and should not change today. Especially, just because they were common situations in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:01 PM

Greg, apparently Loving v. Virginia overturned them all.

No foolin! But the Miss. survey results still stand. But I WAS wrong on Alabama- they were the last to rescind their law, in 2000, and at the time 40% of the voters voted to RETAIN the prohibition. Again, the "New South" indeed.

..since their removal must be voted on. Legislators don't waste their time doing this...

Geez, Q, the legislators in all the rest of the states in the union that had such laws don't seem to have minded wasting their time to rescind them & thought it appropriate to do so long before the year 2000 ( Except Miss- which rescinded the law in 1998).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:07 PM

"Jesus was cool."

Indeed, and neither judgemental nor fundamental.

"Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE ."

He may well have said this, but it neither directly, nor implicitly states that this is THE ONLY definition.

Besides which, his words are known only through reportage some 70-100 years after his death, and therefore subject to a degree of revisionism, depending on the agenda of the reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:16 PM

"if it was not for their sexual preference, there would be no need to redefine marriage."

Your ignorance is showing again Ake. There are many long term same sex relationships which are celibate, and there are many single gays who are celibate, though forming platonic friendships.

Your pre-occupation with the sexual practices of people you despise says more about you than about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:28 PM

"Marriage was not "usually" between a man and a woman, it was ALWAYS between a man and a woman" - Akenaton

Caligula married his horse, and since he was a divine emperor, it was legal on both secular and religious levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:33 PM

"One man does not have to screw another, but he may choose to."

The genetic makeup of the man you describe predisposes him to be ATTRACTED to males rather than females, regardless of whom he may, to quote your vulgar style of speech, screw.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:58 PM

1%... of 64,000,000 (?UK population) is 6,400,000 people. NOT such a small number

Be that at it may. Where the law is equal to 99.999% but unequal to the rights of 0.01% then we have inequality. It starts when ONE person is not afforded the same rights as another. This always was avquestion of equal rights.

If gayvfolk have an agenda, and I believe we do, then it is one of equality. Thankfully there are a great many straight folk who support that and I am heartened to see it on mudcat as anywhere else.

The smoke and mirrors school of disinformation surrounding homosexulity in order to somehow discredit the rights of gayfolk is losing its ability to affect the hearts and minds of decent people of all genders, sexulities and religions.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

Like.

There isn't any point in arguing with people who are trolling here because the world isn't working the way they want it to, unless it's just for fun. They've lost, and they're frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:37 PM

1% = 640,000 but that is still not a small number.

And it irrelevant what someone believes Jesus said about wives... what is important is what is fair & decent.

Ake said that marriage was always M+F, but that, even if it WAS so (and it was not), it also irrelevant because the control of church marriages was by those whose basis was religious. Love & concern & emotional attraction are NOT necessarily the purview of the church.

Definitions and habit and cultural generalities are VERY different matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:11 PM

I'm not passing judgement on homosexual's practices. If they want to screw each other then let them do it. My problem with this topic is that if the choice of homosexual behavior is protected by the courts, then what other behavioral choices will be protected?

The homosexual agenda in the U.S. is being used to force open the door so that other behaviors will become 'protected'. Pedophilia and bestiality come to mind, but those are just sexual acts. If sexual perversions are sanctioned by the courts, then why not financial perversions?

Progressives are being told that the homosexual agenda is all about love, and the Christians who protest it are bad. Anti-love. But compare the Sermon on the Mount to a gay love song of your choice, and then decide which of the two truly promotes love.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 03:21 AM

Other than the disturbed mind posing as guest above, I am heartened by some of the wonderful recent comments, especially the bit about Caligula😄

Bigotry is a stain on society and one way to make it die sooner rather than later is normalisation at the legal level of lifestyle that offends people who go out of their way to be offended.

The ins and outs of the Supreme Court ruling are not things I understand from this side of the pond, but equality, whether real or still aspirational is something we can all recognise and strive to achieve.

Jesus only exists if you are a Christian. Even then, you can twist the words clsimed to be his like the bigots do or you can be comfortable with them for what they do say, as gay christians keep telling us.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 03:48 AM

2nd exception for Bill......could you please give examples of formal marriage. or Christian marriage involving two people of the same gender, before the redefinition?
1% of any population is a "tiny minority"

Caligula appointed his horse Consul, he did not marry it.
Caligula was also deranged.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:42 AM

Sorry, hadn't quite finished.

"Love & concern & emotional attraction are NOT necessarily the purview of the church.".........but marriage IS.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:50 AM

1. It's not "1%". It's 1.5%. And that is very likely to be skewed by high denial rates amongst older people.
2. That is based on self-reporting. 5% did not answer - probably because they are in fact gay or bisexual but are repressed.
3. That would fit with earlier Treasury and Stonewall estimates.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:54 AM

PS - US rates may be higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:40 AM

Sorry Bill... my maths was well out :(

Thanks for the correction

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:49 AM

Drive something underground then say it only affects a few people.

Mmmm...

By the way, my marriage wasn't in a church, nor am I a Christian, but my marriage is as legitimate as anybody else's. Ditto anybody and everybody who is married, regardless. Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more, nothing less as it affects others. Anything deeper is between those within the marriage. Churches have a licence from the government to conduct marriage, not the other way round. (UK, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere?)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:10 AM

A large number of todays marriages have no religious involvement. All marrages must involve a government issued licence to be considered valid. Many result in divorce, under the rules of the government, not a church. Few divorced seek a church annulment, but are considered divorced, regardless. Thus, the claim that marriage is today a church institution, not a government one,holds little logical water.