Great. So you DENY gay marriage activists the right to use the 10th to promote faggotry in states like Massachesetts. That’s not a libertarian viewpoint, but I applaud you for thinking conservatively.
Now. What do you have against the government (state or FedGov) endorsing, supporting and promoting traditional marriages? Take away any and all religious aspects of marriage and you still have an ECONOMIC reason for the government to promote marriage. Marriages have been the backbone of a healthy society for hundreds of centuries. And we can easily see - since LBJ and his Great Society programs - what a systematic government endorsed destruction of marriage has done to our society.
Yet you advocate for the government to abandon “the “license” route”?
Wow. You must really love the results of that abandonment - the Welfare State.
Actually, it is. From the philosophy, not the political Party.
Take away any and all religious aspects of marriage... And you lose the argument. Without the religious bias, there is no real reason to deny gay/polygamy type arrangements. In fact, you run afoul of the equal protection clause. Take that away, and it's a non-issue. You also set yourself up for what we have now, government telling religious that they can't have a bias against practices they find abhorrent. Nice going Ace...
Welfare? Non sequitor... I'd cut off all public welfare programs tomorrow. Full stop. EBT cards ring ZERO as of Midnight tonight. All taxes paid in to pay for such a waste of resources are immediately charged back to tax payers accounts. Earn your keep or starve to death. Private charities would be your only recourse.
There's something none of your GOP-e Nanny State hero's would have the balls to go after...
To try to get this back a little more civil, what do you think about this proposal by a pretty rational libertarian friend?
Instead of redefining marriage or getting it out of the legal realm, how about simply making it illegal for the government to ask for or track anyone’s gender or orientation? Then, instead of it being a marriage issue, it is a privacy issue. The contract is blind to gender just like it is blind to race?