“Marriage is marriage - what it is doesn’t change.”
Correct, no matter what the state decides to call it at any one time.
“The state has the obligation to protect marriage just as it has an obligation to protect other things that come along with the package.”
Perhaps in a perfect world. But the bottom line is the definition the state uses is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time. They could care about this obligation or not. I don’t think they have for a long time. I think the state’s involvement is the major reason so many are willing to accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’ today.
Freegards
“Perhaps in a perfect world. But the bottom line is the definition the state uses is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time. They could care about this obligation or not. I don’t think they have for a long time. I think the state’s involvement is the major reason so many are willing to accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’ today.”
Would you argue that the state has no right to enforce trial by jury or Habeaus Corpus? Marriage between one man and one woman is part of the package, and just as much the responsibility of the state to protect.