"What I am suggesting is more a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". "
Marriage has been defined as a legal institution since the time of Caesar, in Western civilization as between one man and one woman. We can at least render some thanks that the Justinian Law of 500AD and every law since then defined marriage clearly in the West as one man and one woman.
The sanctity of marriage and family says something about its inherent goodness, but getting politicians involved is not about sanctifying anything, but about according it *legal protection*, which it needs to thrive. This is no different from saying that since religion is important, that we need a "freedom to worship" and tax exemption for churchs.
Only a fool would insist that a legal tax exemption 'sanctifies' a church!
It is sophistry, used often by those intending to weaken marriage's protections, to suggest that since something other than legality 'sanctifies' marriage, that therefore the legal underpinnings of marriage are unimportant.
That is a very wrong, very un-conservative or even anti-conservative argument to make, that thoroughly miscomprehends the role of law in this case. It's not an imposition of the law, its a matter of protection of something already understood as sacred in our culture. As we all know, legal structures undergird our public morality and incentivize our behavior. Read up on Edmund Burke and his 'little platoons' and the concept of Government as covenant between different generations.
Or in sociological behaviorist terms: Make marriage less palatable and less protected, and non-marriage thrives; allow polygamy/gay-unions as marriage, and culture decays; make divorce easier, and families get broken more. We see it already, as 'partners' get goodies once reserved for spouses, where the cultural inhibitions on sex, child-rearing, even family formation outside of marriage have fallen. etc. The negative consequences of the breakdown of family are too obvious and too legion not to notice.
"We elect politicians to produces laws, not render things "sacred" or not." Correct, and the most important laws they can pass or not pass are those that protect or not protect the vessels of our civilization. The people making the laws are like the curators at a great museum, and we entrust our important institutions to their temporary care to make sure the valuables of civilization not get stolen or damaged.
A definition of marriage in our laws is like repainting the Sistine Chapel ... in tangerine color.
Me: "The legality of marriage just makes it "legal", period -- and this is not irrelevant, but it isn't everything either.".
You: "It is sophistry, used often by those intending to weaken marriage's protections, to suggest that since something other than legality 'sanctifies' marriage, that therefore the legal underpinnings of marriage are unimportant."
I never said that two people who wished to enter into marriage required no legal document to support that partnership. I did say that I don't believe that politicians should be charged with defining marriage, because they are unqualified for the job -- and unlike you, I believe that if we leave that definition in their hands, then no one is going to be pleased with the outcome.
"That is a very wrong, very un-conservative or even anti-conservative argument to make, that thoroughly miscomprehends the role of law in this case."
Quite, the opposite -- it is extremely "conservative" argue that politicians should not be allowed to interfere with our personal lives and personal liberties!
"As we all know, legal structures undergird our public morality and incentivize our behavior. ....Make marriage less palatable and less protected, and non-marriage thrives; allow polygamy/gay-unions as marriage, and culture decays; make divorce easier, and families get broken more. We see it already, as 'partners' get goodies once reserved for spouses, where the cultural inhibitions on sex, child-rearing, even family formation outside of marriage have fallen. etc. The negative consequences of the breakdown of family are too obvious and too legion not to notice."
Yes, and all that has happened without "gay marriage". What do you think will happen when(and I agree with sunsong that it is a matter of "when", not "if") gay marriage is allowed to be legislated?
I have no idea how old you are, but I will tell you that I am in my 50's -- and virtually no one my age or younger is "attracted" or "incentivized" by seeing marraige purely as "a cultural institution". And frankly, the incentives and rewards for marraige purely as a "legal institution" are already virtually nil. (As we have heard before, who wants to be "institutionalized"?) Are our taxes lower as a married couple? Not by much! Are we more protected as a spouse or are our children more protected by marraige? No. "Family law" is a joke, to anyone who has ever had to deal with it! In fact, mates and children would be better legally protected under the concept of a legal partnership, where the concept of "good faith" actually means something -- unlike the "no fault" apsect of "irreconcilable differences" in a divorce!
The people making the laws are like the curators at a great museum, and we entrust our important institutions to their temporary care to make sure the valuables of civilization not get stolen or damaged.
That is far-sighted and noble sentiment. However, it is about 180 degrees from where politicans actually see themselves. Politicans want votes and campaign money to get votes; they are careerists, not idealists. If they think passing "gay marriage" initiatives will get them votes, they will do it -- and in a few years, that younger generation will give them their votes for doing it. My argument is simply to take that right out of their hands, by never letting them define "marraige" to begin with!