As I read the usual histories of marriage the religious and social developments of the early 13th century included a recognition of the sacramental nature of Holy Matrimony. Other developments included the growth of universities and the mendicant orders. One of the results of the French Revolution was the creation of an institution of civil marriage. This is required on the Continent. In England the church continued to deal with marriage and other issues of personal status until the early 19th century when civil marriage was authorized.

If they want to open the whole thing up fine.  Let’s do that.  Let the state justify marriage/unions ab initio.  What interest does the state have in committed couples at all?  What earthly interest does the state have in giving special privileges to couples over singles?

Then why doesn’t the state get out of the marriage business all together? It would cut down on the number bureaucrats and tax lawyers.

Ok, so God owns marriages, as he does everything else. Next? This doesn’t strike me as a cogent argument.

Neither the state no the Church has any right at all to define marriage.  That right is exclusively reserved to God.  And on the question of homosexual marriage the answer has been given.  It’s “No.”

I completely agree with Archer’s #3.  The state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

Yep, I agree with #s 3 and 5. Jesus made it quite clear that the religious colluding with the secular (God versus Caesar) was a non-starter. I’d imagine that He finds the current state of affairs (no pun intended ... maybe, lol) quite ridiculous, particularly society pushing everyone to be married, with the help of religion. That’s totally backfired with the gay marriage thing.

The state originally (and maybe still) had (has) interest in being in the civil union business because of a number of issues:  Children could not be conceived outside of heterosexual intercourse (and still can’t in any low cost way); children and women with children lead economically better lives married than unmarried; society needs children in order to self-perpetuate itself and tend to its elderly.  Therefore, current generations and each individual society has a vested interest in procreation and in having the resulting children (and their mothers) be in economically stable conditions.  Thus the argument in favor of tax laws and inheritance laws favoring marriage.  Once these arguments are widely viewed as irrelevant or as unfair to a group of people (those who want to marry a same-sex partner, for instance), society really has no reason to make laws in favor of civil union and should be out of that business entirely.  It has always been true that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, ‘owns’ marriage - the union of two souls.  Society and the Church simply got this mixed up because we authorized priests/pastors/imams/rabbis to perform both the Church function and the civil function in the single ceremony.

Has anyone else noted that the right to free exercise of sex has become the predominant rights cause of modern society, trumping all others? And it seems to be a right that trammels up the attendant consequences impacting the freedoms of anyone who disagrees. Among those affected are people who advocate an ordered society and particularly those concerned with the rights of society’s most defenseless—our children.