The history of marriage suggests the state has long had a substantial interest in defining marriage sufficiently to be able to address the legal effects of procreative activity, such as paternity, survivorship, default rules of estate transfer, not to mention the legal and social obligations of raising children. That is why state marriage regulations have traditionally focused on heterosexual marriages; they are, by volume and by character, the most important source of the state’s most valuable resource, the next generation of citizens. Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage.
As for Libertarianism, it has two basic flavors. One is more of a natural law, constitutional orientation, and the other more toward anarchy. I suspect the natural law camp has an easier time allowing the state to regulate marriage. Whereas the anarchistic would tend to revere individual autonomy as the supreme good and thus resist any such regulation.
Likewise, with abortion, the tendency to absolute individual autonomy, combined with a low view of the unborn child, tends to tilt libertarians toward unrestricted abortion. Our own libertarian candidate for governor, Lex Green, is so conflicted on the matter he says he is neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Huh? Yet in reference to capital punishment, in the same radio interview, he said he was pro-life. Pro-life for capital felons, and “don’t care” about unborn children? That is tragically incoherent.
No, libertarianism may be a friendly force for free markets in theory, but its permissive nature on the social issues, if fully fleshed out as social norms, just makes our culture worse, more dependent on the state, and less likely to be able to sustain a free market. It is, IMHO, an inherently self-defeating system.
I vote for a traditional, natural law conservatism that recognizes both the rights of the individual and the beneficial role of government, at the highest level possible, in defending the rights of the recently procreated, whether it concerns the stability of traditional family structure that nurtures them, or the more basic issue of not being killed in the womb.
Note, ectopic pregnancies and fallopian pregnancies are not in the womb, but outside the boundaries, anatomically speaking. Only when the continuation of the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby is the termination of pregnancy justifiable.
As for: Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage
These matters were handled by the churches at one time. If you dig far enough back into geneology, the records of birth, death, marriages and such fall primarily into church records, not government ones.
Legal matters of property were recorded by government, primarily for the purpose of taxation. Heirs and assigns were recorded for the purpose of recovering such debts as may have been owed the state, and for the purpose of levying taxes upon them subsequent to the demise of the former owner.
While the church may have been concerned with the welfare of the children, such has not been the concern of the State until the last hundred years or so. Legal obligations were, again concerned with taxation and succession, moral obligations were the focus of the Parish.
Marriage regulationa have focused on heterosexual marriage because that has heretofore been the only variety recognized by either church or state, as it should be. It is only in the past 40 years or so that perversion has supplanted the presence of open reference to God in public and even private institutions to the degree that homosexuality has become an 'open' issue at all.
I would note that the attempts by the state to take over the responsibilities of the church have only led to a variety of 'morals' which can only survive as long as they are supported by popular vote. The Church has scripture to guide it, and without the convolutions of twisting the teachings of the Bible cannot condone anything but heterosexual relationships.