I certainly agree that there is a greater Biblical acceptance of polygamy than of same-sex unions - but that’s not saying much, considering that homosexual acts are called an abomination before the Lord. There’s greater Biblical authority against eating pork than the pig farmers want to admit, too.
The evils of family breakdown have little to do with doctrinal differences of opinion, but much to do with governmental imposition of opinion. The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.
Removing recognition throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, general restrictions such as monogamy may indeed originate in sectarian views, but the positive social effects generated flow even to atheists. Easy outs such as no-fault incontestable divorce not only interfere with religious practice (for example, a Catholic woman who believes she is still married to the man who divorced her, because her Church teaches her so, is generally regarded as crazy), but also redound to the detriment of society as a whole. Uncertainty in intimate relations is not the fault of recognition of marriage, but of redefinition of marriage.
In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.
Because we've given Government dominion over marriage, it can make of marriage what it wants. And right now, it's making it an abomination.
So, we have the option of trying to take Government back in the right direction, or simply taking marriage back. Of the two, I believe the latter is easier to do, as it uses Government's own avarice to keep the secular union under its grasp, and eliminates much of what it sees as "opposition" to its position.
We know the "Defense of Marriage" approaches are failing in State after State, and most likely will fail ultimately at the Federal level. The Christian foundation for such unions is no longer considered; it is only the secular, across-all-societal-groups that is of import to our Government. Thus we will never win the battle over keeping marriage pure when it is controlled by Government.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Caesar can have his secular union; God gets marriage.
In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This is an interesting analogy, but perhaps not fully on-point. I would say that bad drivers can still get their license, but only drivers that commit to good driving habits can get insurance (those who marry in a Church receive the sacrament of marriage).
Interesting thoughts, however!