Marriage existed before the current contract status existed. It was both cultural and religious, often by common law. There are secular marriages. I've never denied that.
But let's get back to where we started:
The question was whether homosexual marriages would impinge on religious liberty. I addressed that point with a proof by putting a link into my earlier post. (I'm too new to simply add links directly, so you'll have to do a little reconstruction of the URL.)
There is a secular reason, and its used in law all the time: Precedence. We have a secular (not religiously defined) state but not a secular society. Because marriage is a state matter the states are free to manage the matter. To redefine culture is outside the bounds of law. That's a valid precedence. You may disagree, and that's ok.
But let's get back to where we started:
The question was whether homosexual marriages would impinge on religious liberty. I addressed that point with a proof by putting a link into my earlier post. (I'm too new to simply add links directly, so you'll have to do a little reconstruction of the URL.)
There is a secular reason, and its used in law all the time: Precedence. We have a secular (not religiously defined) state but not a secular society. Because marriage is a state matter the states are free to manage the matter. To redefine culture is outside the bounds of law. That's a valid precedence. You may disagree, and that's ok.