Marriage: It is what it is... not necessarily what you think it is... According the the US Supreme Court, MARRIAGE is a RIGHT of the Common Law, antecedent to government; & not subject to regulation thereof.
Here is the holding from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877): "As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right..." [emphasis added] Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. The statutes to which the Court was referring were statutes in Massachusetts and Michigan that purported to render invalid marriages not entered into under the term of written [statutory] state law. While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government. Or phrased another way, the God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right. Excerpted from OriginalIntent

The concept of "marriage" (domestic partnerships) is as old as civilization.  The current battle over the issue in the US & other countries is a result of many confusions working together. The goal is to intentionally forget natural law in favor of some statutory attempt to work an abomination of law into the acceptance of the public psyche.  The term "Marriage" is now a word with several meanings ... and depending on the meaning - the execution in law will vary.  So, this document will attempt to clarify the term/s, explain the origin of "marriage" & put the issue/s into proper theological context.  What you'll discover is that the commonly held modern beliefs about what marriage is - are mostly based on myths about the law; And that once you understand the actual legal history of the US Government's posturing, - you'll see that the Devil is indeed in the details of Statutory marriage.

So, here's the question for those who may be seeing a seeming contradiction: If the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a Common Law RIGHT that cannot be regulated by government, - how is it that government issues "licenses" to do what the Supremes say can't be regulated? It's because what the government CALLS 'MARRIAGE' - is actually something very different from common-law marriage & quite abominable.

The 'Devil got his foothold' back after the Civil War.  Prior to the 14^th amendment, Blacks were seen in the eyes of the law as "different species" than white.  Different Flesh.  Sound absurd? Up into the 1960's, those favoring segregation often made identical assertions -- including several high profile politicians who were recorded saying it!  Because the law-makers of so many states did not question such bigoted assertions, there came to be "laws" in place that made interracial marriages illegal -- under the premise that Blacks were not recognized w. the rights of Citizens' -- & that Blacks were not "men" in the same way as were "white-men".  This belief was the fundamental assertion of the slave owner/trader. Legally, you can't own another human-being; -So the belief promoted was that black people weren't actual persons created in God's image with unalienable rights.  With that lie conveniently accepted into the cultural psyche, the abomination of slavery in the United States was established. One abomination soon led to others...including miscegenation laws.

Miscegenation proponents often quote from the Bible -- where God forbade intermarrying among the Israelites.   What those who quote such "scriptures" fail to clarify is WHY God forbade it - as if God was concerned about "racial purity".  It turns out, that it wasn't about race at all, -- but about pagan religions being introduced into Judaism's culture by the associations of married relatives.  The truth is made crystal-clear in texts like:  1KI 11:1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter--Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

I would add that the separation clause in the 1st Amendment raises a legitimate issue of Constitutionality about such Mala-Prohibita laws -- but I know of no court where such an argument was ever raised <yet>.  After the Civil War, people who had a spine & decided to marry interracially moved clumsily through the political process, and "Marriage Licenses" were issued as the "solution" to those who wished to marry "outside of their race".  This is "how" government got a foothold into regulating what was actually a RIGHT of the Common Law.  Exceptions via "license" were made to the standing miscegenation laws at the time (an unconstitutional set of laws based on lies). 
This is also where the judgment of God should become a serious issue.   If there is a single issue I can think of that will damn the likes of Religious Reich, -- it is on this subject of "Marriage". After all, if a person BELIEVES that marrying "interracially" is marrying "other flesh", then what you essentially have is a person's own conscience declaring that they are guilty of the sin of Sodom, -- as it is written: "Even as Sedom and `Amorah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."  STRANGE FLESH?  The Greek term is: "σαρκὸς ἑτέρας" -- HETERO, SARKOS.  Notice the term is "HETERO".  Many scholars generally agree that Sodom idolized sexual relations with angels -- perhaps as a religious cult. This activity,- by the very definition in the text about Sodom's sin, - is HETERO-SEXUAL (Sex with the 'Other' - 'Strange flesh' - 'men with angels' - 'mating other kinds').".
I want to be very clear here.  The text is NOT condemning interracial marriages.  The text is condemning sex with HETERO SARKOS (other/different flesh).  God made Adam; & the descendants of all humanity are from him.  There is NO actual HETERO-SARKOS among men.  Men are (1) kind of flesh ... as it is written: "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." - I Cor 15

To recap: 

• Modern Marriage Licenses have their foundations in miscegenation laws.

• Miscegenation laws consider the races to be "different flesh" (less than fully human & thus without fundamental rights).

• A "Marriage License" is a government permit to mate "different flesh" / "HETERO SARKOS".  (Not that interracial flesh is "different", but that was the BELIEF (thought & intent of the law's heart) at the time those laws were passed)...

• A Sin of Sodom was the pursuit of "HETERO SARKOS" 

• So then, the form of "MARRIAGE" that requires a State License is defined by LAW, to be a form of union that was specifically declared by Jude (Jesus' half-brother) to be the Sin of Sodom!

• Men are judged by the measure they use to judge... so those pushing State marriage licenses while yelling "sodomite" at other people - are themselves, - the 'sodomites' (because they are actually violating in ignorance the very thing they accuse others of violating)! How's that for divine irony? Hmm. Seems that mercy does triumph over judgment, - yes?

Do you see where the "fundamentalists" like those pushing for a "Constitutional Marriage Amendment" may be in deep trouble with God?  Contemplate it in the back of your mind and read on...

I know what some of you are thinking: "State Marriage Licenses ... The Sin of Sodom!?, -- surely that's a stretch!"  In light of the New Covenant of the Gospel, -- it is a fascinating dynamic!  Do you need another "witness" to the accuracy of this assessment?  I will give another.

It is written: "`And a man who gives his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay.  `And a woman who draws near unto any beast to lie with it--thou hast even slain the woman and the beast; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them." - LEV 20:15-16

Of course, this is the Law of Moses forbidding intimacy with "other flesh".  However, Paul wrote that the Law is SPIRITUAL, meaning that there is a metaphysical explanation for this law that transcends the direct implications of the text.  Want a hint as to the "bigger meaning"?  OK.  It is written: "I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: `The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth." -  DA 7:15-17  

Do you recall above where I quoted Paul as he spoke of "different kinds of flesh".  Well, I've shown you in Daniel where "Beasts are Kingdoms".  According to Paul, they too are "flesh", as it is written: "And there are bodies of heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from that of the other.".

Will the "Real MARRIAGE" please stand up?

You may ask, "Who will be judged?".  The answer was already given: Those who judge others in light of the license!  You see, there are many people who could care less about the government's "marriage permission slip", -- and many of these people live with another person without the document (as did almost everyone prior to the 20th century).  Very often, the Religious Reich accuses such people of "shacking up" & "living in sin" - "FORNICATORS".  While that "might" be the case; -- I think the bigger question is: "Who are you to judge the relationship of another?".   
I.E: I had an uncle who had a "live in housekeeper".  They lived together until he died.  The family (a bunch of 'pagans' by the standards of Pat Robertson), did not raise an issue as to the estate.  As far as they were concerned, my uncle & his housekeeper had been "married" -- even without the permission slip.  An oddity today, -- a century ago, this perspective was the norm!  Had the family had the name "Falwell", - can you imagine the fight in probate court over the estate of this Common-Law widow!  Jesus warned of such legalism:  "As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." - MK 12:38-40  Jesus was exposing the deeds of the wealthy religious teachers of his day.  The term "lengthy prayers" is a legal expression meaning they spend lots of time in court.  This is precisely the means they use to devour widows houses through probate.

"But unknowing members of my family & friends have marriage licenses!  What of them?", you may ask.  Same answer. Do they judge other's right-standing based on the paper?  Do they judge their "righteousness" by it?  Would they deny any of the "benefits they perceive" the documents grants, -- to another who does not have the document?  By the measure they judge will they be judged!  This is the beauty of the Covenant of Grace: "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" -  Romans 2

BTW: David & Jonathan in the Bible, were indeed "Civilly Union'd'"