[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, I think traditionally marriage has been within the domain of religion. Is there a reason that the state should be concerned with it?

Religion and government were fused with the first colonies of the Americas, and with that fusion came state-arbitrated marriage. There's no reason the state should be concerned with it any more than there is a reason the state should help us live prosperously or happily in any other manner. That's just what the state does.
I'm open to the idea of the state abandoning marriage rights, though.

I agree that the institution of marriage has gone past religion, but if that was the original source, then the government should not be seen as the arbiter of basic marriage rights, as they do not originate with the government.

That makes as much sense as saying the government should not be seen as the arbiter of the right to life because they did not give us life; our parents did.
Our Declaration says that our rights were conferred by our creator. They are then protected, arbitered, and regulated by the government.

The distinction is that the government, if it does not create the state of marriage but only recognizes a certain couple as being married, does not grant the right to marry. If that is the case, then the argument goes outside of the realm of rights and constitutional law. That is hardly unimportant.

The government recognizes the right to marry. What it does with that recognition is up to it and the people.
This is certainly a matter of constitutional law because gay "rights" constitute a fundamental redefinition of the right to marriage.