Dear Dan,

"You think laws on marriage are next to useless"

When they come from government, not when they come from a spiritual authority - the government has no spiritual authority.

"and have little respect for the law makers. You view doesn't appear to be many steps away from anarchy"

I do not hold that any person or group has a right to rule over others against their will. God's people are meant to be their own masters, under God alone. Some may call it "anarchy", but please watch for the subtle differences. I hold that the state may only exist as a servant, not as a master. Its duty is to serve and protect its citizens (that includes protection from each other and making the necessary laws for that: I could write much about it but it gets further from the subject at hand).

"But this has gone away from the topic at hand"

I have no specific interest in supporting gay marriage, but I am alarmed whenever the government oversteps its mark. Unless we stop them now, while they deal with matters pertaining to other groups, other freedoms may fall victim next, including religious freedoms.

"Government is likely to always carry some degree of corruption due to the nature of the fallen human beings whom we elect."

And therefore we must stand guard that their powers are limited, that they can only perform their rightful duties and have no jurisdiction over our private and religious lives (unless we hurt others).

Yuyutsu,
You occasionally quote Biblical Scriptures. Should I assume you are a Christian?

Dear Dan,

"You occasionally quote Biblical Scriptures. Should I assume you are a Christian?"

I am afraid that I cannot say that: A Christian should be willing to follow in Jesus' footsteps and lay down their life on the cross for others and for God, if necessary. Sadly, I am not there yet.

I received a Jewish education. I love God and admire Jesus, but not to the extent that I deserve to be called Christian.

Yuyutsu
Thanks for your openness. 

I agree that we need to be cautious about allowing governments too much power. But setting the exact domain boundaries for governments gets us into a discussion on political philosophy perhaps beyond the scope of this question. 

It's not the role of government to prescribe systems of belief. Yet I'm happy for the government to administer some type of family law for the sake of order and a peaceful society. 

I think your concept of not 'doing harm to others' is only relative, or a bit nebulous. For example, some would say that a man who takes a second wife is doing a profound harm to his first wife. Some argume that a forty year old could marry a fourteen year old without anyone doing anyone any great harm. In both of these cases our current law wants to intervene.

Harm can be assessed in different ways and with different criteria.