EXACTLY....
wrong that is.
before there can ever be a "state" a "clan" or ANY social order, there has to be marriage, covenant and family.
Were every government on the planet to dissolve overnight, my wife and kids would still be EXACTLY what they are: my wife and kids... because the STATE gains its right to EXIST from ME and MY FAMILY... and NEVER the opposite.
If the existence of the state does not change my family, it follows that the STATE is NOT the arbiter of family relations. Period.
Nice try.
But the idea that STATES are the foundation for, or providers of marital status is clearly wrong.
States have acknowleged marriage because it is a precursor to their existance... and they have ZERO authority to regulate it... for without PEOPLE and their Family Relations that supercede and predate the state... there would be NO state to exist.
Common law marriage is enforceable and acknowledged by the state, in virtually all family law courts because COMMON LAW predates and supercedes our state and local laws regarding marriage. Live with a woman as a male for six months in almost any place on the planet and the familial responsibilities for that relationship are acknowledged and enforced almost EVERY WHERE on the planet.
The constitution of the FEDERAL state will never be allowed to regulate the existance of the very foundational institutions and forms that make it's existance possible.
Only a FOOL would try.
GET the feds out of civil matters, altogether or alternativelyl face certain civil disobedience and irresistable overthrow.
People are tired of government regulating every thing.
Family included.
The religionists will learn this, as they continue to push for a "Christian Nation" to be codified in our national laws.
It will never happen.
We need to get over it and get about the business of changing hearts, instead of continually seeking new means and authorities to FEDERALLY criminalize behaviors we find offensive and disgusting. And I do find homosexual behaviors and relationships extremely disgusting.
States don't marry people.
They do want to get a piece of the pie, and some control when they do however.
WE need less government.
85 percent less...
May I postulate that if you and your wife/family were the only existing humans that you would be the de facto "clanleader" and making the rules governing marriage irrespective of whether you had any religious convictions at all.
Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one and therefore under the purvue of the civil authorities, you know, the dread government.
Saying the state has zero right to regulate it is laughable, since it is the state (family law court) that is called upon to enforce it. (Hah, now they just preside over it's destruction).
And We, the people, through our elected reps have every right to define it and overturn the usurpation of the courts.
Your demands that the state get out of civil relationships is a non sequitur and not reality based.
Its early and I may be reading it wrong, but what I got from your post is basically the government should get out of and has no proper authority in matters of marriage. Correct?
If so, then without question gays can get married, as can polygamists and others who are not in a traditional man/women relationship.
This I disagree with.