The government does have the obligation to regulate things, but based on the fundamental law of that society. Our Constitution is based on natural law, and needless to say, “gay marriage” has no part in that!
The real interest of the state in marriage is actually not the social good of children, but property: who has title to it, how it is transmitted, and even who it can tax on that property.
Unmarried persons are free to leave their property to anybody they want to leave it to, free to hold it, free to give it away if they want, and certainly are available for paying taxes, so the state has absolutely no need to declare that they are “married” in order to pursue its interest in their property. However, if the state wants to create some system where unmarried persons (two gay men, or even something like an older parent living with an adult child) can apply for a “household” status, say, this could solve what gays claim to be the problem of unfair tax treatment, etc.
In other words, there is no need for the state to get involved in the sexual aspect of marriage; if they want to create some other practical institution, fine, but it’s not marriage and they can’t force the churches to accept it as such.
And gays have always had their faux weddings and other ceremonies, if they want to accompany the legal status with something more romantic, shall we say.
But that’s not what they want. They want to destroy the Church (and I include in that term other orthodox Christian churches) and they have seen that this is a way they can use the power of the state to do so.
I've long argued for two separate institutions, neither of which has anything to do with the sexual orientation of the people or is an attempt in any way by the government to regulate people's sex lives.
The first is marriage, a permanent contract between a man and a woman (actually between those two and the rest of society) designed to facilitate child-rearing and stable family units. Difficult to get into and even harder to terminate. This was the subject of my earlier post.
The second we could call “civil unions” that any two adults can enter into. Simple to get into (i.e. checking a box and putting a name on your annual tax return paperwork) and even easier to terminate. These are temporary, lasting perhaps only a year or two and then must be renewed. If not renewed they simply expire. A man and a woman could do this, two men, two women, a Dad and his son, etc. It has NOTHING to do with sex or procreation. Its purpose is to allow two people not interested in a lifelong commitment to still be able to face a tough world by pooling their resources, thereby minimizing the number of folks in our society relying on charity to get by.
The laws governing these institutions would be tailored to their individual purposes: property, inheritance, taxes, etc.
This arrangement gets government out of the bedroom. The people and our various churches can continue to regulate sexual behavior with marriage as we've always done, but the government stays out of that side of things.
Agreed. The government should abdicate all interest in marriage. Marriage should be a purely religious endeavor. There should be no ‘legal’ distinction between married and unmarried. No difference. Everyone treated the same. Problems solved. It’s none of the government’s business. Period.