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?
What you’re basically advocating for is to remove all man-written laws and replace them with the bible. Every judge, handed The Bible and told rule from this. Ok.....
So, one night you’re at home and someone breaks into your home. Fearful for your family, your own life or a simple desire to protect your items, you shoot the burglar and he’s dead.
The Bible says, Thou Shalt Not Kill and the burglar is dead, you’re arrested.
The Prosecutor looks at the Bible and reads Thou Shalt Not Kill and that the Bible calls for the death penalty for murders. The prosecutor charges you with Capital Murder and you face trial.
Your defense attorney tells the court that you were defending yourself, your home, your family and you were justified in taking a life.
The Jury looks at their guide, the Bible and see’s nothing about self-defense in there that the can find and all agree, you killed someone. They find you guilty.
The Judge, having received the juries verdict, approves of their verdict and from the Bibles sentencing guidelines sentences you to death. You’re taken from the court room, marched outside and executed. Justice has been served, God has been followed and society is safe, a murderer can not murder again.
What you are advocating is anarchy or a government like the Taliban. No thank you.
I would hope you do not need a lesson on “rule of the governed” or our Constitution to understand that WE give the Government the right to do anything.
To say the Government should not be involved in marriage is advocating either for what Gays want - and end to marriage in society or anarchy.
To believe that people will live by the rule of God is naive and wishful thinking. God’s laws have been with us since the beginning of time, written down for the last 2,000 years and yet people break his laws in every society, every generation, every second of the day.
While I do believe the Government has the right to, or even should, determine what a Religious organization does concerning marriage, I definitely want laws on the books that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. From that definition other prohibitions to the union can and should be made. Anyone who does not would have to approve of a man marrying his 12 year old daughter since they want no laws governing marriage.