However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can but does not always lead to the woman's pregnancy. Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage—having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc. Subscribe to our mailing list. But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable.
That he helped to bring about same-sex marriage in Australia last year.
Gay couples sue Japan over right to get married
Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. Tony Abbott is now trying to take the credit for same-sex marriage in Australia. But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. FBI discussed removing Trump.
It has nothing to do with civil rights. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Same-sex couples already have that.