Separate the two and it all becomes clear. Marriage should not be reachable by the government because its love and religious qualities are outside the evaluative powers of government by definition.
Marriage should also not be termed alone, but in reference to the spiritual tradition, religion or church from which it is derived in each case. This is true anyway - religions don't generally accept marriages outside of their own tradition.
Then, as a separate event, people should have to file a separate petition for civil union with the government that is never called "marriage."
Something like this was proposed 50-some years ago by C. S. Lewis who was commenting on the deteriorating state of marriage in England in the mid 20th century. There would be church marriages and government “marriages.”
I’m looking at how well the government has lately been serving as a steward of the institution of marriage, even if all the “gay marriage” stuff could be subtracted out of the picture. And the record is atrocious. While stuff like this grabs the limelight, we hear less about things like how (only some?) states now ban married couples from sex if one is also suffering from dementia — because that partner can’t “choose” in real time.
I’d likely get aboard a “divorce government from marriage” bandwagon. If the government really should get out of the bedroom, don’t be all special-case about it. Just. Do. It.
Have you never heard of the term "marriage license". That is what this whole thing is about.
Should "marriage licenses" be granted to same sex couples, or father/daughter - Father/Son - Mother/Daughter - Uncle/Niece - Multiple Couples....
The answer is NO!
And it is clearly not up to a bunch of unelected and unaccountable justices who are all suffering from Alzheimers disease to make the decision for the whole of the country.
Marriage has both a traditional and legal definition. If you separate one from the other, then marriage has no meaning at all.