Because it would mean that if the neo-pagans wanted to perform group marriages, or the Church of the Subgenius wanted to unite this man and this pineapple in holy matrimony, they could do that.
Just because the meaning of a term isn't held down by law doesn't mean it isn't held down by custom and by language itself. If "marriage" is no longer a legal term describing a legal arrangement which confers certain legal rights, then the meaning of the term depends on how people use it.
In this case, it's a matter of the circumstances under which people are willing to treat other people as if they were married. I don't think the odds for the pineapple are very good. For other situations, it depends on who it is that you need to treat you as if you were married, and how. I don't think unhinging the word "marriage" from law really changes this picture — explaining to your parents (for example) that you want to marry someone of the same sex/a different race/a different religion/several people/etc. will always be something that needs to be negotiated socially.
I think that people who would be bothered by this are, at some level, not bothered by the idea that "now gay people can get married", they are bothered by the idea that people will act married who are "not really married" according to their worldview. What does that mean? People are really socially married if the people close to them treat them like married people. People are really legally married if the state gives them a marriage license, but this isn't (really) about being able to call yourself "married", it's about a specific package of legal rights and responsibilities which (as we are discussing here) could be made available under another name.
That leaves the religious sense of marriage. Of course this should be no business of the law, but there are people who don't seem to get that, and besides it's interesting. I am not aware of any religion that treats people married otherwise normatively but under the auspices of a different religion as "not really married" as a matter of course — and no surprise, as that would have made pluralistic society (even at the rudimentary level of merely having social contact with neighboring groups) impossible. Religious groups are social groups, and religious marriage is the religious component of social marriage in the same way that saying grace is a religious component of eating. As a moderately devout religious eclectic, I personally believe that the phrase "married in the eyes of G♥d/the divine/etc." has a real meaning which closely tracks the sense of social marriage defined above.
Also note that, for first amendment reasons (plain ol' freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion), nothing prevents the above-mentioned religious groups from performing the above-mentioned hypothetical marriage rituals, and calling the people (or fruits) involved "married", now. However, nobody is thereby legally obliged to treat them as married in any of several specific ways.
no subject
Just because the meaning of a term isn't held down by law doesn't mean it isn't held down by custom and by language itself. If "marriage" is no longer a legal term describing a legal arrangement which confers certain legal rights, then the meaning of the term depends on how people use it.
In this case, it's a matter of the circumstances under which people are willing to treat other people as if they were married. I don't think the odds for the pineapple are very good. For other situations, it depends on who it is that you need to treat you as if you were married, and how. I don't think unhinging the word "marriage" from law really changes this picture — explaining to your parents (for example) that you want to marry someone of the same sex/a different race/a different religion/several people/etc. will always be something that needs to be negotiated socially.
I think that people who would be bothered by this are, at some level, not bothered by the idea that "now gay people can get married", they are bothered by the idea that people will act married who are "not really married" according to their worldview. What does that mean? People are really socially married if the people close to them treat them like married people. People are really legally married if the state gives them a marriage license, but this isn't (really) about being able to call yourself "married", it's about a specific package of legal rights and responsibilities which (as we are discussing here) could be made available under another name.
That leaves the religious sense of marriage. Of course this should be no business of the law, but there are people who don't seem to get that, and besides it's interesting. I am not aware of any religion that treats people married otherwise normatively but under the auspices of a different religion as "not really married" as a matter of course — and no surprise, as that would have made pluralistic society (even at the rudimentary level of merely having social contact with neighboring groups) impossible. Religious groups are social groups, and religious marriage is the religious component of social marriage in the same way that saying grace is a religious component of eating. As a moderately devout religious eclectic, I personally believe that the phrase "married in the eyes of G♥d/the divine/etc." has a real meaning which closely tracks the sense of social marriage defined above.
Also note that, for first amendment reasons (plain ol' freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion), nothing prevents the above-mentioned religious groups from performing the above-mentioned hypothetical marriage rituals, and calling the people (or fruits) involved "married", now. However, nobody is thereby legally obliged to treat them as married in any of several specific ways.