Most of my friends are pretty enlightened, tolerant people (otherwise, we wouldn't be friends) but I have seen some of the wailing/gnashing of teeth over what today's decision means to some people. Here's the thing: as long as there are legal benefits to marriage, marriage is, in this country, a civil institution, not just a religious one. The church I was raised in would not recognize my husband if I were married by a judge, but the law and the IRS would. Nobody is saying your CHURCH has to recognize these marriages...just that the STATE does.
As our current system operates, marriage is a CIVIL right. Which means every person gets to do it. When the Supreme Court starts saying that your marriage is not legitimate if it was performed by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc...then MAYBE you should feel threatened. As things stand, you are lucky that the government recognizes a religious marriage at all.
If your definition of marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God...then I fail to see where anything the Supreme Court says comes into play.
If your definition of marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and the State...then you are just plain wrong.
If your definition of marriage is a covenant between people who love each other, their God, and/or their State...then I guess that's where we are now.
My definition of marriage is a covenant between two people. Their reasons are none of anyone else's business. They may choose to make it their Church's business...they may choose to make it the State's business. But neither is a fundamental necessity.
