Laws reflect the morals of society. A Christian society will have laws reflecting Christian morality, in this case monogamy, with difficult divorce. The laws did not define marriage, but reflected what it is. Certainly there is no direct tie between the state’s approach to marriage and the size of government measured in number of employees or size of expenditures. There is, however, a tie between marriage and the size of government measured in its pervasiveness: precisely the one I pointed to in my post.
Prior to the Massachusetts decision, government did not presume to define marriage, but promulgated laws for its support and regulation. Now various government bodies presume that the state is competent to define the nature of pre-existing non-state social institutions. That is an expansion of state-power and contrary to small government ideals.
If we are no longer a Christian society, the small government approach to the desire of sodomites to marry each other (which has actually been around since Roman pagan times — I think it was Virgil who lampooned the desire of homosexual men to “play the blushing bride”), is not to redefine marriage by judicial fiat, but for the legislatures of the several states to decide that the state no longer has an interest in supporting and regulating marriage, to stop registering or officiating marriages, and to oblige those seeking the common-property rights, rights of inheritance, and the like now associated with marriage to enter into contracts to establish them.
I suppose you are right. In 1878 the US supreme Court decided Reynolds v. the United States 98 U.S. 145-165 (1878 —see
America’s God and country :Encyclopedia of Quotations ,Wm.Federer editor,pp596-97 note 5 (where later Courts found justification for citing Jeffersons private letter to the Danbury Baptists) the note that the state legislature in VA “substantially enacted the ... death penalty ...[for polygamy] 1885 Murphy v. Ramsey & Others,144 U.S.15,45 (1885) p.597 note 7 1889 Davis v. Beason 133 U.S> 333,341-343,348 (1890 )ibid pp597-599 note8 “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.They are crimes by the laws of the United States ,and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho...
....such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness...” 1890 The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United States 136 U.S. 1 (1890) forbade
the practice of polygamy in the US stating “It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and civilizations which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” ibid note 9 p.599.I seem to recall legal opine involving No fault
divorce. And I think in the 70’s the Court defined “marriage “ as a union that could receive benefits including property rights. (I seem to recollect the same year the Gay Activist Steve Warren was published in the Advocate demanding the “surrender” of Orthodox Jews and
Christians . Or they would find themselves the target of the
most sustained program of Hatred and vilification in recent memory.— Warning to the Homophobes The Advocate p.29
Sept.1974) None of these legal opinions defined “marriage”
per se—but it seems in my lifetime the National Government has acted to declare interracial marriage an item the states could not prohibit. and closely followed by the legal opine concerning no fault divorce. Then calling
“marriage a “union” that could receive benefits including property rights, to the demands for every State to recognize
same sex marriage. And through it all the Government has grown not only in numbers of Federal employees -but in terms of power.I surmise the lust for power to control our lives will never abate until “We the people insist our Government once again recognize Governments are instituted among men to secure our God given rights.And ought be small
and bound by the enumerated powers declared in our Constitution.Any thing else is “unconstitutional”