Its not intended to, the state could define their own idea of a “marriage”, family takes on other meaning I doubt the state is looking to define. The Church has its own identity of “marriage” which in fact the state used in conjunction with the Church. The state then decided in “separation of Church to state” to widen their definition to which it is now “different” to what the Church considers a marriage. The Cruz of the matter here is you can’t have it both ways. Otherwise you have the State now defining what is a Church and without separation.
Has nothing to do with marriage in the Church or separation of Church and state.
Still has nothing to do with what the “Church” defines as marriage in which there is a separation, in fact its there intentionally.
The state needs to come up with its own theory and definition of marriage to which these other points are non contingent.
What does this have to do with the state telling the Church what they have to accept.
In this particular case Its about the definition of marriage. Point blank, to which the Church disagrees with the state, the rest isn’t contingent to the point.
The Church doesn’t perform gay marriage, never has , never will, and countries have came and gone. This equal rights social experiment has nothing to do with the Church. The discrimination your speaking of is forcing the Church to listen to the state with issues of faith and morals.