-—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.
“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.”
As long as it coincides with what the institution actually is. There have been some states that have defined marriage as including two people of the same sex. Most by judges. Some by legislation. There are a number of states that barely passed pro-marriage amendments in the low 50% ranges, and the trend doesn’t look good as far as I can see. For the state, marriage is whatever most people think it is at any one time. Is gay marriage any more valid if most people agree that it isn’t an impossibility? That’s where the state involvement comes back to bite, at least in the modern era. It was always a danger.
And the state is never getting out of the institution. It would be giving up massive control of the culture, just not going to happen, in my opinion. I think what will happen is some faiths will just ignore the state and take the punishments that go with disagreeing with the gubberment about what is and is not a marriage.
Freegards