Surprisingly, both the state and churches were mostly uninvolved with marriage until the ninth century.

Wrong. Although matters did not come to a head until the ninth century, the marriages of the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise were already causing trouble like that at the end of the previous century. This includes:-

In Spring, 900, Leo VI married Eudokia. His previous two wives had predeceased him. De Ceremoniis by Constantine VII names as many as three daughters born of the previous marriages but no son. Leo wanted to secure his succession by this marriage. George Alexandrovi?Ostrogorsky points that a third marriage was technically illegal under Byzantine law and against the practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church at the time. Leo VI had to seek permission by Ecumenical Patriarch Antony II of Constantinople.

Marriage licenses are a fairly new invention, created in the mid-nineteenth century as a tool the state could use to enforce social proscriptions on interracial marriages.

How very US-centric – and so, in this case, absolute rubbish. That may very well have been when and why the USA followed the European lead in this, but it had absolutely nothing to do with when or why European countries started doing this (considerably earlier than the mid-nineteenth century). From this we have:-

In England, under the provisions of Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753, a marriage was only legally valid if the banns had been called or a marriage licence had been obtained [emphasis added], codifying earlier practice within the Church of England. By this statute, 26 Geo. II, c.33, the banns were required to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding ceremony, in the home parish churches of both parties. Omission of this formality rendered the marriage void, unless the bishop’s licence (a common licence) or the special licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury had been obtained [emphasis added].

I oppose State sanctioning of same sex marriage because I oppose the State and want to see the State, at a minimum, reduced, not expanded. Why would I support a policy that would expand the size and scope of the State? The issue of State sanctioned same sex marriages reminds me of foreign aid and military alliance with Israel. If you are against same sex marriages, well the only reason can be that you are a horrible homophobic bigot, just like if you oppose foreign aid and military aid to Israel then you must be a crypto-nazi and an anti-semite. Never mind that you are also for the separation of State and heterosexual marriages or foreign aid to any nation, those are just smoke screens to hide your actual, evil intent.

Stacy, thanks for tackling this topic.