It use to be, now with the seperation of church and state not in the least. If you choose it to be it still is and in my personal opinion I believe it is how it should be but you will see a lot of people disagree.
In the traditional meaning of it, yes it is religious. But now, it can be religious or not. But if you take the religion out of it, there isn't much left. So here is my advice:
And in some cases it isn't even that. Common law spouses are becoming increasingly common. Marriage is somewhat dying off, at least from what I perceive.
Something I'm iffy about.... Does the Common Law Marriage still have the rituals of religious marriage, or is it just like any other contract normally created between two parties? Because it doesn't sound so "romantic" in my Laws and Ethics course.
Does the Common Law Marriage still have the rituals of religious marriage
Not in my country. In CLM, people just go to live with each other without a proper ceremony and no contracts. This means that their children will be illigitimate. Its sad but in some cases its necessary because they dont have much money.
I don't understand why it needs to have a legal aspect to it. Sure, if two people are religious, it makes sense to be bound together in holy matrimony. But if neither of the "victims" are religious, the legal part just doesn't seem necessary.
In essence, religion is a promise of faith between two people. By faith, I don't mean religion, but trust and honesty. The religious aspect is more of an addition equivalent to swearing to God. Just because you have not sworn your commitment before God does not mean it is nulled.
(one of the reasons the church of atheism exists is to point out the rather unfair boons the government grants someone solely for giving his reading on a book).
It's not solely for reading a book. It's for so much more than that. There's a lot more that goes into government boons, but more important, there is so much more to religion. That's what you refuse to understand.
Marriage should not be religious in the eyes of the law. While people are free to consider it religiously, it should not necessarily be so.
As far as my knowledge of the US constitution goes, combining legality and religion into the official ceremony of marriage would probably be a breach of the US constitution's separation between the church and state. Then again something being technically unconstitutional hasn't stopped things from happening in the US in the past, so that's a bit of a moot point.
just because the government rules that it will view marriage one way doesn't mean that is the gold standard of how to view marriage... if the people in question view it with a religious spin then it is religious. When I think of getting married the first thing that comes to mind has nothing to do with what the government will give me... I'm not saying that its religious for me, but for me it has nothing to do w/ all of those perks that come with it... and by that I mean I don't even consider putting those into the equation
how its viewed is relative to the individual. it may not be religious for you, but it may be to someone else. who are they to say it has to be religious for you and who are you to say it can't be religious for them
