[TexasFreeper2009]

You make a good argument, but then you must also argue that states have no authority to recognize traditional heterosexual marriage.

Which is probably the best argument to be made. The state is not involved when someone gets baptized, why should it be involved when a man and women are joined with God in holy matrimony.

[EternalVigilance]

Hogwash. There is no moral equivalence.

[EternalVigilance]

The state is not involved when someone gets baptized, why should it be involved when a man and women are joined with God in holy matrimony.

Because marriage is not just a spiritual matter. It also forms the foundational unit of civil society, of economy, of human self-government, and of our physical Posterity.

[rollo tomasi]

Governments have pretty much recognized marriages for the most part since written history began and offered some type of protection (Restitution if affordable mainly for widows). In the United States/British North America a couple would get married then usually file some sort of public recognition to the State/municipalities that they were joined (Sometimes from the Church or the person who said the rites). This was a common custom for obvious reasons, but unfortunately there was a lot of fraud occurring concerning couples/females/males who claimed they were married.

As a State authority, what would you do to maintain order and prevent fraud in the wake of Social Security laws, tax laws, pension laws, and military wives whose husbands were KIA on behalf of the State etc...? Keep in mind you can't just waive a magic wand to make all those pesky laws and situations go away. Also if you pull an Augustus by decreeing low ranking soldiers cannot marry be careful of your retention rates. Higher ranks also have huge monetary prices as well and sometimes they get KIA as well.

I don't like marriage licenses, but the real world and corruption often complicates Utopian ideals.