[ansel12]

I have to respectfully disagree. The argument was lost when government got involved and was made the ultimate authority on marriage. This is the perfect example of social conservatives gone wrong. Supposedly small government “conservatives” set up a system of government authority using laws and rules derived by politicians to provide special benefits to those who engage in what is essentially a special interest activity. And now that the authority is used by opponents of marriage to destroy it, “conservatives” cry foul. Government should have no role in marriage. Why does one need the blessing of government for the joining of two people before God?

That is a silly post, when do you think formal "legal" marriage first emerged in America, or in history, or in all societies everywhere?

Rome? Greece? Tribes whether European, or Indian, or Asian?

You are right about America being created by social conservatives, they are the only humans that could create such a free nation, but when do you think that they didn't have the concept and practice of a "legal" marriage?

[Monorprise]

Government became involved in marriage when questions of faithfulness and inheritance became subject to dispute.

In this respect agree with you. However in the respect of licencing marriages rather than simply recognizing that which has already happened by the power of God and thus implications there to I agree that Government has no business.

Government does not and Cannot form(or for that matter break) a marriage, it can merely recognize it’s existence in terms of legal implications.

I would thus propose that the question is not so much about the unfailing sinful foolishness of the State and Sodomites around us but of yourself.

Do we recognize the unions of Sodomite as legitimate? I would say absolute not. Its time to tell theses people that, they are not really bounded and have no real moral obligation.
Their only real marriage has been to that of Sin, and we believe in Redemption.
Urge them to leave Sodomy behind and Imply in no uncertainty terms that includes the one to whom they claim to be bonded.

What they call a marriage is a lie, and that is in no meaningfull way a marriage.

Hate the sin love and remind the sinner of their path to redemption!

[Honcho]

Arguing that legal marriage should exist simply because it existed prior to the formation of the union is silly. Many things existed prior to the formation of the Union.

Look, anywhere you give government power is bad and that extends into even the more traditional social concepts. The execution of marriage as it exists today in greater society is ridiculous on its face. And that is primarily a result of the interference of government and it’s rules. Rules that are defined and manipulated by politicians.