marriage is not religious

Wolfson defines marriage as love and commitment and dedication to another person. He makes this his first task so that you know what he is basing his argument on. If he didn’t do this you could make up your own definition of marriage and all of his arguments could be made untrue and unreasonable. I think he definition of marriage is the way that most people would define it. Others would add in a religious aspect to it, but in reality religion is not marriage. Marriage is a commitment of love between two people. For the things Wolfson is arguing for, the rights that come with a legal marriage, this definition and not a religious definition is sufficient. Others who add in the religious marriage, must take notice that he does not want religious rights, he wants civil rights. That is what I think people get hung up on.