BBVD,

You are correct in that marriage began as a religious institution. I don't know when or where it first became a state institution as well. Of course, not so long ago, many states and religions were one and the same. Many countries/governments have official state religions. Fast-forwarding to comtemporary America, marriage is both a religious and a state institution. A recognized marriage is one for which there is a state-issued marriage license, regardless of whether a religious service certified the marriage or not. Since being married in this country involves having a state-issued marrigage license, and since it involves a number of insurance, inheritence, and legal guardian/caregiver issues, marriage is very much a state issue.

As an aside, when I got married many long years ago, I truthfully wondered why I had to obtain a marriage license from the state. I figured since I was being married in a church and it was being officiated by my pastor that the whole affair was none of the state's business. What I learned is that the state made marriage its business because the state has an interest in knowing who is going to support the kids that result from a marriage. That is, the state doesn't want to get stuck paying welfare for kids if able-bodied parents are trying to be dead beats. There were likely other reasons, too, but the thing about who pays to raise kids is mainly what I recall. Seems kind of funny if that is the pretext for denying marriage licenses to homosexuals, doesn't it?

States and our nation are institutions of law. The laws derive their authority from the state and federal constitutions. The constitutions guarantee equal protections and considerations for all citizens. Those guarantees are not limited just to heterosexual citizens. Consequently, judges are ruling that denying homosexuals state-issued marriage licenses denies them certain guaranteed freedoms that belong to all citizens. Hence, we are in a transitional period of extending state-sactioned marriage and its attendant benefits to homosexual citizens who were previously denied their due constitutionally protected rights.

I can understand why some relgious people would deny homosexuals the covenant of marriage for religious reasons if their religion is opposed to that. I don't understand the reasoning for denying a state-recognized marriage to them, however, unless that person is trying to use their religious convictions to impose their religious will on other people through a state regulated process. That seems like state sanctioning of a particular religious doctrine, which is illegal under the separation of church and state, however.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.