Only God determines the legitimacy of a marriage

The argument

On this view the legal debate over same-sex marriage is beside the point, because the authority that makes a marriage is not a legal authority at all. According to the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament created by God himself to allow the physical and spiritual union of one man and one woman for the sacred purpose of procreating and raising children. The argument takes this definition to be exhaustive rather than descriptive: if the sacrament exists for that purpose and was instituted by God for it, then there is no other reason to be married and, therefore, no other form of partnership shall be recognized as a marriage. What follows is a claim about categories rather than about permission — a union outside the definition is not a marriage that has been withheld, but something that was never the same kind of thing. From that premise the argument distinguishes two senses of the word. The state has allowances that grant it the ability to call certain unions a marriage in the eyes of the law, and proponents do not dispute that it can do so. What they dispute is what such a designation establishes. Despite this Earthly fact, a marriage in the eyes of the law does not prove its legitimacy, because on this account legislatures can determine what a term means for legal purposes but cannot alter the sacrament it names. Only a marriage recognized by God is a true marriage. The conclusion is therefore that the debate itself is misdirected rather than wrongly decided. Whether or not a marriage between same-sex couples is legalised, the question of legitimacy is already settled elsewhere and is not the kind of question a vote can reach. God does not recognize the marriage; therefore, on this argument, it is not so.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The state has always been involved in marriage. As far back as ancient Rome, marriage was a legal matter under the remit of imperial law. It is an entirely legal construct. Socially we do not need to publicly declare our commitment to another person. It is implied in our decision to spend all our time with them, share responsibilities, and share our living quarters.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The sacramental definition is a doctrinal claim internal to one tradition, not a shared starting point. Marriage has been a legal institution regulated by civil authority since at least Roman imperial law, and Christian bodies themselves disagree about what marriage is for. [Rejecting P2] The premise concedes that the state can and does confer marital status in law. Since the debate is precisely about that legal status — who may inherit, visit a hospital bed, adopt, or file jointly — saying it is not the real thing does not remove the question. [Rejecting P3] This asserts access to God's judgment on the matter rather than establishing it. It is offered as a fact about the world when it is a statement of one tradition's teaching, and traditions that read the same scriptures reach different conclusions. [Rejecting C] Irrelevance does not follow. The premises concern theological legitimacy while the legalisation question is about civil recognition, so at most they show that a legal ruling would not settle the theological point — which no one advancing the legal case claims it would.