Excellent quote! thank you for that.
Yes, by allowing the state to define marriage it becomes vulnerable to whatever changes the state makes.
But this is not the fault of the state, but the people who have come to run it. I still believe somehow that the state must be involved - otherwise, you will have a secular society with its own definitiosn, and a Church with different ones. Church and State cannot have that huge a gulf between them. Or so it seems to me.
“...otherwise, you will have a secular society with its own definition, and a Church with different ones.”
In my opinion, at least in the modern era, the Church can’t punish you beyond kicking you out if one disagrees with whatever their take on marriage happens to be, and their take usually changes much less than the state. That danger will always there with the state’s involvement, and their definition just keeps changing all the time—and for the worse as far as I can think of.
But it is a moot point, as the state will never divest itself from the institution. Statists won’t give it up because it gives massive control of the culture for their own ends, and homosexualists because they need a way to punish those who don’t buy into their nonsense.
Freegards