Ebbie, I've had exactly the same thoughts.

Marriage should be considered a religious rite, like baptism. Therefore the state has no more right to say who can be married than to say who can be baptized. Churches should regard any state regulation of marriage to be an encroachment on their freedom of religion.

I think there still is a need for the state to recognize domestic partnerships, but they should be exactly that: partnerships, no different from business partnerships. As far as I know, there is no regulation of who may form a business partnership. There can be any number of members in a partnership, and a person can be a member of any number of partnerships. (Think of a band, where the band may have certain shared assets, like sound equipment, and shared responsibilities, such as a contractual obligation to perform at a certain gig.) The state might need to get involved, but only if someone is sued; for example, someone wants to get out of a partnership and the partners can't agree on how to divide the partnership's assets, or who is responsible for the partnership's debts or obligations.

Both the state and employers should quit offering special benefits to married couples. They are unfair to unmarried people, and an inefficient, incomplete way to provide "benefits" that everyone should be entitled to. We need universal health coverage that does not depend on marriage or employment of one of the partners.