Your posts to me in this thread have not been exactly civil. I cannot recall reading a more egregious post than #87, so obviously trolling for a volatile response. So spare me your feigned offense.
At least *this* post of yours doesn't seem offensive - probably because your reasoning escapes me. I just don't quite follow the link from "being in league with Islamists" to "don't see traditional marriage as essential...." Care to connect those nonsensical dots?
As a matter of fact, I DO see traditional marriage as an essential part of American (and more generally, Western Judeo-Christian) society. What's more, I didn't even mention it in this thread. I didn't deride traditional marriage and certainly didn't speak up in favor of gay "marriage". But, since you allege otherwise, I challenge you to find and cite this comment of mine which supposedly minimizes marriage to the point of a "contract between two individuals". Take your time, dig though my old posts.
I'll check back tomorrow. Be thorough, now.
The point is that the government does have the power to regularize and solemnize marriage. Has, at least under the Common law (which the US is a part of), the state has had this authority for at least 500 years.
Hence the references to Habeaus Corpus and to trial by jury. Marriage is included among this. This is why the state should retain this power to protect the definition of marriage. Given that marriage predates the common law, the common law cannot change marriage, it can only protect the definition of one man and one woman.
The second concern is immigration. Insofar as the state issues spousal visas, the state has the power to regulate marriage. Removing state control of marriage is in effect, unrestricted immigration into the US or elimination of spousal visas. Is that really what you want?