I'm not sure about this, but I imagine that it is illegal for a priest to perform a marriage without a marriage license.
However, I share your view on the the irrelevance of the state's position on religious issues.
Still, unlike baptism and communion, marriage has significant secular consequences, particularly in the areas of taxes, welfare benefits, and child custody.
So-called "gay marriage" will almost certainly require a complete overhaul of tax and welfare policies that would eliminate marriage incentives to normal families. For example, social security is already a wreck; "gay marriage" will create a new class of entitlements for gay couples.
Historically, the state's purpose in licensing marriage was to convey a permit to reproduce children in exchange for a lifetime commitment between the bride and groom. Reproduction was chief among the privileges granted by marriage: that's why close relatives could not receive a license, and why children born out of wedlock were called illegitimate. Lifetime commitment was its chief responsibility.
As a matter of law and fact, marriage is optional for having children and half of marriages end in divorce. Times have changed. Over the years, the purpose of the marriage license has become more about economics and less about children.
But marriage will retain some vestige of meaning. How long will it be until a legally wed gay couple sues their health insurer to pay for the services of a surrogate mother? The state, after all, has in effect authorized a marriage and marriage licences the right to reproduce. Would it be fair for an insurer to discriminate against a homosexual couple?
I wouldn't be surprised if the argument were eventually extended to a right to clone.
One thing is certain: this is a Pandora's box and no good thing will fly out of it.
Yours may be the best argument yet against gay marriage.
Of course it is. Because you are talking about a priest carrying out a secular function. Catholic priests don't need to "perform a marriage" in any secular sense. From a sacramental standpoint, they simply preside over the sacrament of Holy Matrimony in which the two spouses are the ones who actually "perform a marriage."
Still, unlike baptism and communion, marriage has significant secular consequences, particularly in the areas of taxes, welfare benefits, and child custody.
All of which are nothing more than functions created by the state that serve no purpose in a Christian context. And yes, I include "child custody" among them, too -- which is why the most important decision Christians make when baptizing their child is selecting godparents for the child who are capable of raising that child in the event the parents die while the child is still young.
Reproduction was chief among the privileges granted by marriage: that's why close relatives could not receive a license, and why children born out of wedlock were called illegitimate.
This was also why the very concept of "marriage" is conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution, and was absent from the laws of most states at the time this country was founded. The notion that reproduction was a "privilege" overseen by a government would certainly have made the members of any free society vomit.
How long will it be until a legally wed gay couple sues their health insurer to pay for the services of a surrogate mother?
That is a perfectly legitimate argument, but it doesn't really apply to this case because the same question could be asked about any medical procedure. The whole system of medical insurance is flawed for the simple reason that all of these "what-if" cases will eventually have to be spelled out clearly in the insurance company's policies.