Marriage requires neither church nor state, because in nature, on an island for example where only two people exist, it comes down to a simple verbal contract between two people.
The church originally stepped in when it decided that "God" must sanctify this contract before it could be acceptable, but we all know that such dogma is merely for the purpose of having power over other people.
The state stepped in when it became obvious that certain legal matters, such as inheritances and child support, needed a basis in law if they were to be agreed upon in all similar situations across the board and over a long time. But this began with precedent, when an arbitrator of one sort or another had to determine what was to be.
The church may have every right to determine how marriage is to be handled in its denomination or in its individual congregations. But the state must by its nature remain neutral.
This neutrality means that a contract made by two people which denies no other people the same right cannot be denied. It is not a "special right" to let two women enter into such a contract, as opposed to a man and a woman. This contract is, after all, found first in the nature of humans who must be free to make them if they are to be allowed to live in justice.
Laws that deny such freely made contracts are laws that deny the right to freely make contracts where such action does not deny others the same right. A "contract" between heterosexuals to deny the same right to homosexuals is an unlawful "contract."
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
