I wanted to reply to Matt's post, but couldn't put my thoughts on this subject into a reasonably convincing arguement that the current SSM debate isn't about a live and let live philosophy. It's way more devious a far reaching. This article by a much better wordsmith than I'll ever be, might give you a little more insight.
Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | April 1st, 2013
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.