Well, the principle you support and argue for does not exist -as such, you battle with windmills and win hands down.
You conflate the ability of people to live together and engage in sexual activity with the institution of marriage recognized and accommodated by society...
The state can prohibit some people living together and engaging in sexual activity e.g. children regardless the state can not prohibit adults consentually living together and engaging in sexual activity...
HOWEVER, the state does not have to reward those who choose to live together and engage in sexual activity UNLESS they meet certain requirements -these requirements comprise "marriage"...
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig...
Face it, there is no principle that a State can prohibit marriage of any type.
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA.
-- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
Well, the principle you support and argue for does not exist -as such, you battle with windmills and win hands down.
Unable to actually argue the issues outlined above, you simply deny they exist. How weird.
You conflate the ability of people to live together and engage in sexual activity with the institution of marriage recognized and accommodated by society...
BS. No comparison. -- I've said that States can reasonably regulate marriage, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
The state can prohibit some people living together and engaging in sexual activity e.g. children regardless
Nope, -- the state can reasonably regulate some non sexual aspects of people that live together & raise children.
the state can not prohibit adults consentually living together and engaging in sexual activity... HOWEVER, the state does not have to reward those who choose to live together and engage in sexual activity UNLESS they meet certain requirements -these requirements comprise "marriage"...
Again, you're arguing a point not at issue.
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig...
Clever remark if you're into pig jokes.