The state should be in the crime business to protect the citizenry.

This is a HUGE difference in the system of government our founders gave us. We individuals are sovereign and the federal government is limited to 14, explicit powers. States are free to create laws not covered by those powers, but the overarching premise should be adhered to: Individuals are sovereign and are born with rights.

What concern should it have regarding romance? If you start listing concrete points they are all easily shot down*.

1. neo, I forgot that your career involved family counseling(?) Regardless of the details, this is an area you are very well versed in.
2. I personally believe marriage means; one woman and one man coming together to form a family. But I personally believe a lot of things that would also be dangerous to give the government control to enforce or mandate. I believe society would be greatly improved if all adult men and women dressed presentably when out in public. I also do not want to have Talibani with whips thrashing grown men wearing shorts in public places, or grown women wearing jeans that look like a tiger paw shredded them.

*The state should regulate marriage to protect children. O.K., what if biological parents are killed in a plane crash. Can the childrens’ two, spinster Aunts care for the children? How about two, very close family friends who are female and unrelated? Should we require one or both of those two women to marry a male in order to be foster parents? If we allow them to live together and raise the children should we make them sign a document, punishable with imprisonment, should the two women ever embrace, or kiss, or?

Just stop and think about the system of government our founding fathers gave us, and the brilliant philosophy behind it, and then think about what happens when you, or anyone else, attempt to force pet issues into the framework. Would real Americans have a system that requires them to petition a government functionary for permission to live and breed with another free, American citizen? “Oh please, Mr./Ms. county clerk. Please agree that my fiance and I can live with one another and be viewed as worthy in your benevolent eyes and the state for which you are overseer.”

Yes. Of course. Same thing everywhere, except some religious leaders are also certified as “justices o’ the peace.” And the reason is: drumroll……….

Because they are two, different things. The state needs to know who I am sharing property with and giving legal authority over decisions in my life. My church wants to impose its tenets on me, and my spouse. Just as my church cannot legally force my wife and I to raise our kids in the faith; my state cannot threaten my wife and me with excommunication should we fail to abstain from eating meat on some Friday, during Lent.

And the state (at the local level of states, for the most part) is indeed in the marriage business, just as it’s in the crime business and many other businesses – to encourage certain behavior and to prohibit other behaviors, supposedly for the benefit of society. That’s what a lot of law is about. I have never seen anything that indicates the majority of people think the state should have NO say in marriage; it’s long been my impression that the disagreement is about how much say and exactly what type of say.

My favorite course in law school was about the philosophy of law and the purpose of legal systems. This comes under that heading, I believe. I’m not saying I’m an expert, and of course things may have changed since then as well. But I find the topic of great interest.

That horse (marriage/married) left the barn a long time ago, moot, latches, etc. Now it is on to bathrooms and gender; anyone can have any gender they want on any day or any hour, because consensus and liberty. It’s a process of societal destruction, just my opinion.

I don’t know what the effect would be, and I don’t think anyone knows.
My gut feeling is that there would be more family chaos and that it would impact negatively on society, but that’s just a gut feeling and I could be very wrong.

But I also am pretty sure (again, my memory of legal stuff is vague, but this is what I think is correct) states would not be allowed to pass laws that prohibited the state from entering into a certain class of laws so broadly, in areas that traditionally states have been allowed to regulate, and that don’t violate the Constitution or its amendments. It might take a state constitutional amendment to do so, and even then I’m not sure it would pass muster in the courts. I’m not at all sure a state legislature would be allowed to tie down future state legislatures so broadly and sweepingly.

Yes, they will try, but why should I make their cause a fait accompli by ceding them jurisdiction? The words “marriage/married” should not be on any government document. I would gladly back an amendment in my state to eliminate it. “Filing jointly?” Sure. “Owned in common?” Sure. Married? No.

The Left is showing us how important language is. Don’t cede them the word. If you do, they can define it. If you do not, they cannot.

You did a good job of breaking down the legal issue and how the Supreme Court found its way in, but what if your state passes a new law that the state no longer has any jurisdiction, interest or legal oversight of unions between adults of the legal age of reason?

Your state would still oversee parental rights, powers of attorney, property ownership, etc., but no longer anything to do with unions beyond those things. What would happen? Would the sky fall? Would anything change?

And if your state did that how could the Supreme Court force any church to oversee non-heterosexual unions? It’s no longer something afforded by the state, so the federal government cannot step in under the guise of a denial of rights.

If you don’t want the camel in your tent don’t let the camel’s nose in.

Regarding rights of children, see case law for inheritance or transfer of property, not my monkeys or my circus.

The government, state or federal, is not “in the marriage business” in my case, and in the views of the majority of your fellow citizens. My wife and I did not consider ourselves married until a Catholic Priest pronounced us man and wife. Full stop. End of sentence. And I have a cousin who considered herself married when her and her husband stomped on a glass in front of a Rabbi. And I have a very close friends who considered themselves married when they walked to City Hall and signed a piece of paper after living together for over 5 years.

What percentage of kids are born out of wedlock in the U.S.? 40% Do those kids lack any of the rights my kids, born after my wife and I wed, did/do?

If my state makes a law that brown haired men cohabitating with red haired women are no longer considered “married” my wife and I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Our religion has authority over our marriage. And I also, sincerely, have no issue with anyone who views marriage differently than my religion does.