“The State has a right to involvement in marriage.”
The state does not have rights(I know you probably didn’t mean it that way).
This would never come up if the state’s definition of marriage will remain valid. But it will not, it hasn’t been for a long time. The state’s involvement in marriage, at least in the modern era, has been terrible for the institution. This is because the state’s definition has been changed and will continue to change for a variety of reasons. Right now they are marxist reasons.
“What other earthly institution can arbitrate child custody disputes?”
Child custody? What is the % of unwed mothers again? The modern marxist state has a vested interest in creating damaged people to rely upon it to survive. One good way to do this is to condition folks to look at marriage as just a lousy gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed between anyone as long as the state says it is OK. To say we need the state to resolve custody of children between married people is like watering the garden while the house is on fire, in my opinion. A recent poll has 40% of the folks thinking that marriage comes from man and thus the state.
Freegards
-—The state does not have rights(I know you probably didn’t mean it that way).-—
In a sense it does, because the State represents society —its citizens.
We, as citizens, have a responsibility or “right,” to arbitrate, or to oversee the arbitration of, child custody disputes, and to define a legal marriage.