Marriage is not just a religious sort of thing. That’s where you’re missing it.
The state has an existential interest in preserving real marriage and the natural family.
To put it another way, to fail to preserve the natural family - which is the basic organizing unit of our civilization, our laws, our system of self-government, and our economy - is out and out national suicide.
Protecting the natural family is the most crucially important component, by far, of fulfilling the paramount stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
I agree - but what of when evil men are in power? The question is: "Should they be allowed to define 'marriage'?"
My argument is that the best, and only way, to keep from having another definition of marriage forced on us is to as-a-people reject any other; this can only come about from some base morality, it is this morality that religion is supposed to enhance/refine.
Protecting the natural family is the most crucially important component, by far, of fulfilling the paramount stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
The best protections the government could give would be to fairly and equitably apply the law -- this would preclude: progressive income tax, confiscatory taxation (withholdings), the assumption of guilt (men in divorce/family-court), welfare.
This (loving and doing justice) in turn would prevent many of the ills we are currently experiencing.
All of this can [and will happen] without ceding the definition of "marriage" to the state -- in fact, the best way to define "marriage" for future generations would to be fully committed to your own (if you're married) and let them see the example... and this is completely without the government touching 'marriage'.
Excellent points and we know “from whom all blessings flow”.
LLS