Insert Title

"By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why."

The problem with this question is that it seems to approach the issue by assuming marriage is rightfully the business of religious institutions. Unfortunately, marriage is as old as dirt, which makes its original function difficult to ascertain. It is entirely possible marriage was either hijacked by religious institutions or the right to officiate them was essentially outsourced to the religious institutions by whatever primitive government was in effect. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate question to ask by what right does religion have authority to regulate unions?

Originally, I was going to make an appeal towards the Social Contract in order to answer the question of why government should have a role in marriage, but the more I think about it, the more apathetic I become to the role of both church and state in this debate. Neither of them have any legitimate authority to lay claim upon the institution of marriage. Sure, Jews and Christians, and I suppose most major world religions, are obligated to believe marriage is rightfully theirs, but they can only appeal to tradition for so long until things start to become sketchy.

What is a traditional marriage, anyway? Is it the ultimate means for a loving couple to show their devotion to eachother? Is it an arrangement made between two households for their children to get married because we certainly cannot allow them to make their own ill-conceived decisions on the matter? Is it a means of acquiring greater wealth and power for a family? Is it a contract meant to garnish exclusive breeding rights? Is it between a man and a woman, or a man and a woman...and a woman...and a woman...and so on and so forth depending on the culture and time period?

You see, if anything has a claim over the institution of marriage it would be culture, and right now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in regard to the Western attitude towards the aforementioned institution. Those "Definition Purists," unless they can figure out a clever way to reverse the trend, are wasting their time and money fighting a battle they are inevitably going to lose. Our culture is beginning to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and sympathize with their desire to demonstrate their love and devotion to eachother.

This change in public opinion will eventually alter the stance of the government, and religion will figure out a way to cope - either by figuring out some sort of "divine loophole," or by claiming their marriages are more legit.