Comment: A contract between whom?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No lets not,.. (see in situ)

A contract between whom?

I don't want to change the meaning of marriage. It is a contract that two people made to eachother that they will love one another to death dues them apart.

No, a state license is a contract between two people and a state. In colonial times there were no such things as state 'licenses'. George and Martha Washington were married at her house by a minister and given a 'certificate of marriage'.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - "the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." So all of a sudden, the state steps in and turns something that was always recognized as a union with legal ramifications and makes it an illegal activity if no state permission given. Prior to 1900, the only requirement for a legitimate marriage was an announcement in the paper of your intent to marry and the couple be married by an official minister of God with witnesses. people were hoodwinked into getting a state license and should stop that practice. Why would gays want to be owned by that state, too? In western societies marriages happen when a minister of some kind sanctions it. Outside of that the 'union' is purely a state contract to engage in something otherwise illegal.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison