The argument is flawed, Government should not dictate what is a religious compact. This extends to hand fasting, blood rites ect. True separation of church and state would be seen by removing the religious definition from government registry. True marriage equality would be equal protection under the law by redefining all government applied for marriages as civil unions regardless of gender. It infringes on the freedoms of people of faith to dictate what they should accept. It infringes on gay couples rights that government uses a standard that excludes them. Does it not make sense to remove a definition considered by people to have religious connotations from the government. Let people have the EQUALITY to define their own marriage? To appease the right restrict government's role in to only observe property rights and taxation? Conversely to all the Liberals and Progressives reading this, would it not be the ultimate separation of church and state to remove ANY religious connotations from the legal government recognized definitions? Hence Civil Unions for all.
I will debate with what you said about how all marriage should be, "equal". This goes back to one simple argument. That argument is, can gay people be married. What people seem to grasp is that this is not a matter of religion, nor is it a matter of politics, rather it is a misconception. This is like a horse wanting to have the same snout as a pig for equality's sake. Marriage, whether you like it or not, is ideally based off the romantic and BIBLICAL relationship between one man, and one woman. Now, should gay people have equal rights, why not. If they want tax laws etc. to be the same, then let them it is a free country. However; they cannot be, "married", as marriage is of a strict definition. Gay people can become married at any point, they cannot; however marry each other. If they would like civil union, that is fine. Homosexuals are not being given second hand treatment, nor are they having their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness taken away, they are simply being told that they cannot have an ideological union between one man and one woman, with two men or two women
Marriage had ideological roots far before the bible. Take the Torah for instance roughly predating the bible by 3000 years had the concept of matrimony. Also take Hinduism which existed roughly 1800 years before any biblical interpretation also having rites of matrimony. Anyways I digress the core arguments for Gay marriage have been lack of access to tax benefits, estate, and other provisions that are generally the sole territory of married couples. A few states that allow civil unions address all but the federal tax aspects of the argument. By removing any religious connotation and establishing all recognized government couplings as civil unions would that not achieve the desired result of equality? I did not once recommend that the religious definitions be redefined but the legal definitions recognized by local, state, and federal governments. This method would also ensure that religious freedoms are untouched having the government further removed in legislating that which it has no business doing so. I think the misconception is that there cannot be equality without infringing on religious beliefs.
First off, the Torah IS the Bible. The Bible is the completed Torah, but contains the same content at it's beginning. Second, gay marriage is not a political matter. You cannot change the definition. What if I said I wanted to have orange skin, therefore, we must change the definition of orange. Marriage IS religious. The family unit is the sole most important concept in any religion with the exception of the Deity, or deity themselves. Instead of legalizing gay marriage, which does not exist, why not simply allow them to have the tax benefits etc. and then call it a civil union. There is no such thing as a gay marriage, because marriage is an ideological union between one man and one woman. There is no reason for the definition of a word to be changed. As long as they have rights, there is no reason to change the meaning of a word that transcends any of our lifetimes, and was formed by religious scholars and God himself over the course of thousands of years.
The crux of my original argument was to change all state sanctioned marriages to civil unions (gay, straight, to a shoe?) across the board in regards to the government definition. I support the Church keeping its definitions intact. It seems we are both on board with that idea I might not be articulating that I wanted to remove any government intrusion to church.