An infringement?

Trudy, I have to agree with most of what I read here.
You have it backwards. The church is entering politics when it intends to change or modify laws or any government function. That violates the concept of separation of church and state, and should be the basis for the government to collect taxes from a church, just like any other income producing business. No church has any business trying to influence governmental affairs, nor should any government office try to influence the domain of the church.
Let a church handle the unanswerable questions regarding the supernatural, and let people live as they please.

Yes, the state should have allowed Holy Matrimony in churches when it used marriage. But the state can not regulate what words a or all religions use. So the church could have taken the word marriage back and used it. So the state had no choice. Churches could use civil unions instead of marriages if they wanted to.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

"Hasn't the state infringed a bit on the power of the church by using the term marriage and defining the legal rights thereof? "

No. next question.

"the power of the church", now that's a scary thought. Whose church, anyway? Yours? His? Hers? Theirs?

I would say you've got it backward. Churches have infringed on the power of the state by trying to veto a civil and human right.