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'.
You keep dwelling on marriage, but you also support homosexualizing the military and adoption and child custody don’t you?
God instituted marriage, and defined it.
Government therefore has only two choices: Follow the laws of nature and of nature’s God, or not.
They can pretend that gravity doesn’t exist, but when they start to put their insanity into practice by jumping off 80 foot cliffs, the rocks at the bottom aren’t going to care much what they think or believe.
What this fight is over is whether or not we’re going to let them take our country, and our children, and our posterity, over the cliff with them.