Here is my thought about marriage and religion.
Religions frequently attempt to define marriage yet often the boundaries of religion are crossed over from within a marriage - after the knot had been tied in church, temple or within a sacred grove.
Consider the many denominations within Christianity alone - spouses may switch denominations during the course of a marriage even if religion frowns upon it - even if it amounts to excommunication, yet still stay married.
While marriage partners may switch religions together or individually, the marriage often (if not usually) survives, both in their own eyes and the eyes of society, even if they started out with the blessing of a particular Church.
One's religion may define a set of criteria for marriage but couples do not always comply - in fact, some couples are not religious at all, yet in the eyes of society, they are married nonetheless.
For those who are religious, marriage is usually twofold - both married in church AND before a Justice of the Peace. This satisfies both religious and secular requirements, both spiritually and in the eyes of the law. Some couples elect to marry ONLY at Town Hall, or in a private ceremony amongst friends, even if a Church does not honor or recognize such a marriage.
My husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace and not at a church - it was considered a secular ceremony, yet I'm a very spiritual person, if not particularly religious in the sense of organized religion. Interestingly, today I would have done things differently, as I don't believe that "government" should define marriage.
I believe that religions have the right to define marriage within the context of theology. I also believe that individuals have the right to define marriage on their own, especially if they are not members of any particular church.
I do have difficulty with Uncle Sam defining marriage though. Today, there is a great deal of political controversy around the issue of whether gays should be married. In fact, the issue (both pro and con) has become a bargaining chip for many politicians' campaigns. In my opinion, this is the equivalent of begging government's blessing on what should be considered either a spiritual or moral issue that transcends both local and Federal government.
I can more easily understand bringing marriage to an alter, than to a partisan platform!
Many gay couples also happen to be religious - why, for heaven's sake would it be so important to any of them to have a marriage license drawn up at Town Hall? Would it really make a positive difference in their union?
There's also the matter of "Separation of Church and State" to consider. We do not live in a theocracy. It seems that many couples are getting things backwards, attaching so much importance to whether they can be married at Town Hall. It is like asking Uncle Sam if it is OK for them to proceed with a marital union.
While religions themselves can define marriage from a traditional perspective, secular criteria for marriage will vary elsewhere.
Interestingly, many churches will refuse to marry a couple if they have not first obtained a legal marriage license - but this is certainly not true of all churches. It is still more customary or traditional for religion to define marriage than for a secular body of government to do so.
While my husband and I took our marriage vows seriously, from both a spiritual and moral perspective, religion does not define marriage for me; neither does the secular world.
