[ansel12]

The big problem in allowing the courts to have a say in marriage is that this cedes to the government the ability to define marriage — even a constitutional amendment defining marriage is dangerous this way: because once it is accepted as legitimate then it may be altered the same way it was created and, having ceded the power to define it, you no longer have a valid objection to the state defining it.

When did the state not define legal marriage in America?

If it had been only private, then we would would not have had to wait until today to get gay marriage and polygamy.

[OneWingedShark]

When did the state not define legal marriage in America?

Just because the state has defined it doesn't mean it should be the one defining it. (i.e. just because some government agent claims the authority to do something does not mean that he has such authority.)

If it had been only private, then we would would not have had to wait until today to get gay marriage and polygamy.

You're argument is flawed, of course: the perfectly righteous has no need of a law, for the law is for the unrighteous.
If the general society is generally righteous then there is little need for [much] law, but increasing the number of laws does nothing to increase the general righteousness of the people, and in fact is counterproductive (See Jesus on traditions of the elders).

If you really want to address the issue of homosexuality then the place to start is the heart, not the law.
(Fortunately, God is in the business of making clean the unclean, of making righteous the unrighteous — Isaiah 1:18)

[Pelham]

“When did the state not define legal marriage in America?”

It always has and American law has roots in Christendom. American law derives from British common law. British common law goes back at least to the Doom Book of Alfred the Great circa AD 893. The Doom Book itself was compiled from the legal codes of the three Christian Saxon kingdoms of Wessex, Kent and Mercia.

[Cboldt]

-- If it had been only private, then we would would not have had to wait until today to get gay marriage and polygamy. --

The government outlawed the practices of polygamy and homosexuality, much as it now outlaws bestiality. A subtle difference from defining legal marriage, but a difference just the same; and a difference that, if enforced, would prevent private polygamy and homo-marriage agreements.

Separate from that, I have been of a mind that the rationale used by these robed clowns, to find a right for homos to marry, is equal protection found in the constitution. Do you know if my thought on that are in fact correct? I haven't studied the various decisions, but cant think of any other basis for striking down laws that prohibit homosexual marriage, polygamy, etc.