Of course the Government needs to define marriage and for more reasons than the benefits that come from marriage.
Without a legally recognized definition of marriage the government could not make prohibitions on marriage or make determinations as to the conditions people can marry.
Without the involvement of the law and government people could
Marry their own children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters or 1st cousins.
Children could be married off to adults - a common practice in some parts of the world.
Two children could be married, even those as young as 6 years old - another common practice in India, Nepal and a few other countries.
People would be free to commit fraud against another by committing repeated acts of bigamy.
Polagamist marriages would be legal and while a good argument can be made that they should be based on our 1st Amendment, community standards of the country dictate that these unions are not acceptable. Which brings us to your next questions, what gives the Government the right to define marriage.
First is the obvious answer, in order for the Government to become involved in any matter they must have a codified legal definition of said matter. The obvious need for this is to bring uniformity for the law and within government. This prevents, as in the cases we have now, one state from claiming marriage can be homosexual while the majority says only heterosexual.
We give the Government the right to define marriage.
Marriage must be defined so that any prohibitions on marriage can be made, since the government is charged with both making those prohibitions and enforcement of them, they must define marriage.
As long as the Government recognizes the marriage union as a right in which certain other rights stem from (inheritance for instance) they must define marriage to determine who qualifies.
To those who believe that the Government should simply get out of the marriage business - have you considered the real implications of just that happening?
If you learned a man in your community announced that he had married his 12 year old biological daughter, that now she is no longer his child but his wife and she is now pregnant with his child, would you be comfortable with allowing that under the law?
Without defining marriage, you’d have to.
All of the examples you brings are to prohibit unsavory marriages before god - that is the job of the church!
You claim we give the government the right to define marriage - where exactly did we do that?
As long as the Government recognizes the marriage union as a right in which certain other rights stem from (inheritance for instance) they must define marriage to determine who qualifies.
And now you've reached the crux of the argument! By making marriage (before man) a "right" from which others stem - and which government alone is responsible for defining! - we have returned to the form of rule we escaped during the revolution!
Our rights do not stem from anywhere except the Creator. I have the eternal right to decide what happens with my property / money - I can leave it to my children or dispose of it as I see fit. If I live in a contractual union before man - then my spouse and I share certain rights to property / money. These contractual rights are governmed by the laws of man - not the Creator.
IOW - get government out of traditional marriage - that belongs to the Creator alone.
If the government feels the need to promote any one type of union between free peoples over other types, then it should be done in accordance with standard legal precepts and based on sound legal arguments - just as any other contract.
Laws about who can have sexual relations with whom have nothing to do with whether government should define "marriage" - and governments are rightfully charged with regulating certain behaviors based on thier immediate danger to others (incest, sex with kids, etc...)
If you learned a man in your community announced that he had married his 12 year old biological daughter, that now she is no longer his child but his wife and she is now pregnant with his child, would you be comfortable with allowing that under the law?
Having sex with a 12 year old, daughter or not, has nothing to do with "marriage".
Without defining marriage, you’d have to.
Why?