Of course not, but the point is that if we want the gubmint to do right, then we have to MAKE it do right by being specially vigilant.
I want to investigate your argument a little further, though. Beyond just the stock phrase of “getting the gubmint out of marriage,” what exactly do you intend to replace it, and how do you think it will work out, pursing extended ramifications of your policy choice?
“Of course not, but the point is that if we want the gubmint to do right, then we have to MAKE it do right by being specially vigilant.”
And my point is you can’t trust gov’t to do right, at least in modern times. You can trust what your faith says about it, and it bats 1000.
As far as practical matters go, I figure free people can have a contract between them if they want one. I imagine some faiths would require some sort of legal contract in order to get married, some wouldn’t. Hopefully many would stop looking at marriage as a lousy gov’t contract but as something to do with their faith, and that would improve the state of the institution and the culture.
But I know the gov’t is ‘probly never going to give up its involvement in marriage, to that institution’s detriment. It affords too much control in the culture, and is a great weapon for the Enemy. Do you think the homosexualists want the gubberment to quit defining marriage? Not hardly. They want gov’t to be able to regulate marriage, or at least fool folks into thinking it does, forcing and conditioning folks to accept an impossibility like “gay marriage”, contrary to what their faith teaches about it. I voted for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman in my state, but I doubt it will really make much difference eventually. The good news is that what my faith says about marriage is really all that matters. It’s just a shame that the gov’t has the power to punish if they disagree with what your faith teaches.
Freegards