Replies

What the state officiates, they must define.

Exactly, and that's the problem.

More liebertarian gibberish.

NO, not exactly.

The thought comes from here:

16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also -- indeed, human society itself -- may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum, 1880

Now I recognize that if you're not Catholic, the last thing in the world you'd want is for the Catholic Church to regulate your marriage...but the same principle would hold true regardless of with what particular group you choose to pray.

Bottom line (if you are a Christian), What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

What possible benefit to society exists by having the State regulate and license marriage?

A taxation penalty?
Discrimination when getting state assistance? (Not that I'm in favor of State assistance, but the existence of marriage...and its subsequent rejection in the eyes of the State...is the basis upon which the so-called Great Society is based. Co-opt churches into being agents of the State (pastors sign marriage licenses, after all) and then financially reward women who reject marriage altogether.
Civil arrangements (or "pseudo-religious" arrangements) to allow virtual strangers to get married without any sort of preparation or commitment and then get divorced a month or two later. Making a mockery of the institution that Christ sacramentalized.
Then the children that may result from such a ill-conceived "union" are treated like pieces of property?

Sure thing, having the State recognize marriage is just oh-so-wonderful.