The government needs to be involved in it because there has to be a solid recognition (and legally recorded) when there is this special relationship contract referred to as marriage, because there are a lot of OTHER LAWS on the books that would apply differently when married or not married.
Now ... as to whether marriage is only between a man and a woman ... that was established historically in our country to be yes, because of the Bible saying so. BUT having said that, I don’t think the “Constitution” says so, therefore, there’s a problem there. It’s been that way historically, but it’s not enshrined in our Constitution.
The people of the USA can put forth a Constitutional Amendmemt and make it so, and therefore the U.S. Supreme Court would be bound by the clear language of that amendment ... but apart from that, I don’t think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to find marriage between a man and a woman in the language of the U.S. Constitution.
>It’s been that way historically, but it’s not enshrined in our Constitution.<
.
Yes, you’re right. A very serious oversight.
Similar to the fact that a national language has not been established, constitutionally. That’s why we have voter instructions in English, Spanish and Vietnamese languages here in Houston.
Well then they will rule in favor of polygamy as well,
or group marriage with multiple partners of any sex. You see where your logic takes you?