[Snuffington]

Your point is absolutely valid -- that the Church has much less power than it once did. But if the issue of marriage rested with the church alone, what more power would it need to perform the same function that the state now performs? Churches already decide based on their own regligious doctrine who may marry in said church. They also perform counseling, guidance and ceremonies. This could easily and fully replace what the state currently does(decides who can marry, issues a license, and performs the ceremony). No brave new world required.

It's not that simple. THE CHURCH of old is hardly the same as today's strip-mall, roll-your-own church structure. Leave the ceremonies aside, in prior days the Church imposing excommunication for divorce was a serious penalty. A priest refusing to marry, didn't mean that you needed to go to Vegas instead, it meant you couldn't be married period.

You seem to view the Church (and modern state's) role as largely functionary and administrative. But the missing role (in both cases) is moral.

Not that the modern state is a bastion of morality of course. It just happened to internalize, formalize, and beauracritize an ancient moral institution. I'd love to see the state out of the picture. I just don't want this urge used as an excuse to devalue marriage itself. And since the state was the reason the Church became a mere formality in this issue, it's hardly proper for the state to abandon what it usurped and then blame the Church when it doesn't turn out so well.

[NittanyLion]

And since the state was the reason the Church became a mere formality in this issue, it's hardly proper for the state to abandon what it usurped and then blame the Church when it doesn't turn out so well.

So your argument is:

1. The state usurped the institution of marriage from the Church, where it rightfully belongs
2. The state devalued the meaning of marriage
3. The state should continue to license this activity

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.