I was trying to explain to you that "government" as it was orginally defined did not mean the state. The word government meant self-government of the Christian man, and it it very closely and almost inseparably linked with this, government meant the family. Every family is a government. Every church is a government. Every school is a government, and yes every the state is a "form" of government, but it was orginally defined as civil government. It's purpose is to pass laws that restrain man in a system of morality. If it does not do this it is only because we have been subverted. This can only happen when the "ministers of justice" are spiritually and morally delinquent. In order to have "free" civil government you are going to have to have free men whose greatest desire is self-government under God.
Redefining marriage is not an issue that I raised.
Sure it is...you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have "self-government" and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us. On the flip-side of this what will really happen is that sodomites will create their own churches to define it any way they see fit.
Throughout this thread, "government" has referred to the state. Thus, when I asked how government has protected marriage, I was asking how the state has protected marriage. Sorry for the confusion.
"you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have 'self-government' and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us."
I do not understand your point. If the state no longer defines marriage, then it can impose upon us its rules regarding marriage?