Exactly. The state is gonna do what it does best, create more things for it to license and manage.
The state aknowledging the “right” of gay marriage shouldn’t be the issue, the issue should be well grounded Christians and other religeous denominations aquiescing to the state “sanctifying” their marriage rituals via license, a practice that originally arose from the body politic wanting to prohibit miscengenation amongst the races...
My personal feeling is this: Why not opt out of getting the marriage license, just file for the other benefits, some of which don’t have to do with marriage separately. Again, it’s also legit separation of church and state as well. I don’t have to consider the state licensing sacred, but rather secular, to me by doing it this way. More paperwork, sure. But faithful to my own beliefs, definitely.
Why should licensing be a real concern right now, when the underemployment/unemployment is a drain on the national budget? When having a kid pretty much means, with a few very well-off exceptions, ending up indebted to the state because they need food stamps to raise their child. We have become a bread and circus nation, where at this point, we need a virtual reality to get our eyes off the real world, because honestly, it’s not pretty.
To the state in the modern era, the definition of marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time. That’s it, the state can’t get the definition any other way. It could be the actual definition or some impossibility like ‘gay marriage.’ Pope Leo XIII warned about this 130 years ago, in the context of civil divorce and remarriage. If you would have explained the concept of state recognized ‘gay marriage’ to him his mitre would have spun off his head. Makes you wonder what other impossibilities the state will be considering marriage in another 130 years.
Freegards