Historically, traditionally, the definition [from Webster's 1828 Dictionary] is:
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
- Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
- 1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. blockquote Matt.22.
- 2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.◁◁◁◁
Even if marriage were considered solely as a civil contract then the government would almost invariably be involved in cases of a breach of that contract, or a divorce, via the legal system. So I don't see how, even on a practical level, the government could possibly be kept completely out of the marriage business altogether, not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.
Cordially,
I’m not at odds with the definition you provided.
>> a civil contract ... not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.
Arguably, the govt facilitates divorce. And I’m not sure how state sanctioning homosexual marriage benefits children.
I don’t have a problem civil contracts but I wouldn’t consider that a function of the state even though the state provides a judicial process for litigation.
Look at it another way. Should the state regulate taxes according to marital status? Should it regulate how insurance companies underwrite individuals, couples, families, and groups? Should the state prosecute an individual, company, or religious entity whom refuses to service homosexual marriage?