Oh. You mean at some point in time it constituted a different arrangement other than a man and a woman? Well I didn't know that. Well of course, if the state's definition has ever included dogs, bugs, plant life and rocks as part of "marriage", then they have no moral or legal leg to stand on by refusing a couple or even a dozen faggots the state certificate of marriage.
The point is the state’s definition in the modern era is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time. That’s all it can ever be to the state, the state doesn’t have any other way to define it. It can get it right or it can get it wrong, but right or wrong that’s the state’s version. Pope Leo XIII warned about this 130 years ago in Arcanum.
As far as plants, rocks, or bugs getting married—if you can get judges, pols, or the voting majority to accept it then all that would be fine to the state. To many, the state hasn’t had a moral leg to stand on concerning marriage for centuries, for many more since no fault divorce.
Freegards
-PJ