I apologize if I've misrepresented your views.
Not misrepresented, just mildly misstated (and certainly not deliberately). No need to apologize; this has been a busy thread and a long discussion.
I'll let you have the last word if you'd like to take a minute to correct that.
Nope, no need, but thanks. This discussion has already wandered rather far from its title topic; the link between legal definitions of marriage to Christian views of marriage was the last thread tying it in.
I'm attempting to bridge the gap between Americans who only know how to talk about law in terms of their own religious ethics, and the restrictions we have placed in the interest of representational government on our motivations for law.
Yep, and you're doing an excellent job of it. The same-sex marriage discussion was a sidetrack; it got started because I was asked what I thought about it and I answered. We're not going to resolve the issue here and it's a distraction from your primary argument.
That families have an interest in protecting the limited resources government offers them, that Americans are committed to natural family structures, that there are good arguments in favor of encouraging natural family structures are all rational arguments against diluting or corrupting our official view of the marriage relationship.
Yes, they are. I continue to disagree that recognition of same-sex civil marriages will in fact dilute or corrupt that view. But I certainly don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is automatically foolish or evil, and you are neither.
On the contrary. Even if we can't apply religious doctrines in our laws per se, we do not want to force Americans to pay for, or honor practices which violate their beliefs. It's even more important to respect the culture and tradition represented in marriage law when religion isn't available to justify it. If Moore can't point to the 10 commandments and say that they are the moral underpinning of our laws, all that says is that we have to bring rational arguments to explain them. If this becomes an excuse for mob rule or anarchy, which the latter I claim the marriage modification effort has become, then it only plays into the hands of the religionists who argue that without the 10 commandments we become lawless. In other words, if we can't refute the argument that without legal application of the 10, we're subject to the 10,000 (often conflicting) laws, then where is the victory in that? Freedom is not license. Freedom requires even greater responsibility.
I think the special interest groups on the left are trying to say that because Christians believe in marriage, it's unconstitutional. Christian ethics lead to laws that are arguably common with a fair amount of American law, but that doesn't mean that we'll reject them. But if our arguments about which laws are constitutional or not appear to suggest that any law that may be Christian is subject to such scrutiny, then the cries for theocracy will only get louder.
I continue to disagree that recognition of same-sex civil marriages will in fact dilute or corrupt that view [of marriage]
If marriage is defined as a sacred and traditional bond between man and woman based on religious doctrine common to most Americans and western civic tradition common to most other cultures, it really has no bearing on other relationships. If we change its meaning on our lawbooks, it still becomes something else. A simple change of law cannot redefine the meaning Americans confer on marriage by culture, tradition, religious faith, and by economic blessing. But if we do continue to allow this, we will be saying to children, "The traditional family unit is not special; it has no particular advantage over any other family unit." Marriage will in effect, cease to be useful to America. I'll be the first to demand that tax breaks given to married couplings (or tripplings, or quadruplings) be rescinded.