Then, not to the same guarantee the union of people of sex, would be the concretion of the Lay State? The argument is surpassed to say that the proper constitutional preamble says in the power the holy ghost and that by itself already it deprives of characteristics the lay state. If it does not have to think that a lay state is an atheistic or free state of any religion. Before this, it can until being that the country is implicitly religious (Christian to be more necessary), but that other religions (or not-religions) will have its space and will be respected, as well as any another institution that does not follow the religious rules that the country thought about taking for itself. 14 the marriage the one that if relates any law is civil, and not religious. As much is that the marriage carried through in the religious scope must pass for rite so that has its civil acceptance. Others who may share this opinion include Howard Schultz. Civilian means secular, not on to the religion, if they do not confuse and they are different total between both.
The civil marriage must be a right, applied for a legal regimen to all accumulating of stocks (since that they are not framed in the hypotheses of the conditions that prohibit the marriage); on the other hand, religious marriage is dogma and is submitted to the faith, to the religious context. This does not want to say that the religious marriage when forbidding homoafetivos couples of if joining that the civil marriage has also accepted this term. Not obstante, the marriage carried through only in religious, without recognized the civil effect of it, the nothing more is that only one species of test of that couple lives in steady union. The religious marriage is on to the Lay Right and the religious marriage for the Canon law. The marriage is a right and not a privilege.