Thomas wrote:1) You are wrong about legal history, hawkeye. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), written before there was a state of Texas, or even a US Supreme Court. In his chapter titled "Of Husband and Wife" Blackstone states unambiguously that "OUR law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract." That's quite different from your concept of "marriage consecrated by the church and registered with the state".
2) How is this a constitutional case? What are the relevant constitutional provisions that would govern the outcome of this case?
1) The is no different than the statement "the state recognizes as legal only the marriages that the state has ratified", but that is not the end of the story. One needs only look at the movement towards recognizing homosexual unions as marriage to see that the law is not the end all be all of societal administration. The people have moved on what the definition of marriage is, the law changes only after the fact, it catches up. When laws are still on the books but are unenforceable because the public has moved then those laws go unused, because for the state to try to use those laws would result in the public taking its pound of flesh from the state by politically punishing those who over reached on behalf of the state. The is the line that Texas state leaders are now approaching.
At one time the church regulated marriage, then over time the state took over this role. However, their is no requirement that the state administer marriage. We are rapidly joining Europe in becoming a post religion society, so we are not going back the the Middle Age practice of having the church regulate marriage, but we can recognize as married any union where the individuals claim the marriage identifier.
2) as I have already said the constitutional question is that Texas law is inconsistent, they must either outlaw marriage of minors or not consider marriage sex rape if one of the marriage individuals is a minor. The cult can argue that the individuals did not seek a marriage certificate from the state because to do so would self incriminate them re the rape laws, yet by law the state would have had no cause to refuse to grant the certificate. The state can not write inconsistent law, and then pick and choose when to exercise each law, first saying that these cult members are practicing rape, and then saying that the marriage does not exist because there is no certificate. These individuals are in a no win situation, there behaviour follows the law in every way except to get the license, and yet the state considers their behaviour to be illegal and is resistant/hostile towards recognizing these perfectly legal unions.