Having states get out of the “marriage” license business may prove to be the best alternative in the long run. In the short term, though I’m not wild about it. Here’s why: if we’re conservatives, we should be skeptical of government solutions regardless, especially when personally implementable strategies exist.
Let me explain: there is no legal requirement for anyone who doesn’t want a “marriage” license to buy one. There is also no legal requirement for churches to solemnize state “marriage” licenses. There is a ready solution to this problem already at hand if we only decide to pursue it. Just don’t participate in the licensing scheme.
We shouldn’t expect government to come swooping in to correct problems that we ourselves are capable of dealing with. How is that different from what liberals do?
In the long run, I predict that the judicial excesses of the last week are going to come back and bite the left. Hard. I’m content to let them smother on their own petard.
I agree with what you say about not participating in government schemes when you don’t have to but a marriage license, though not required by law is a contract with a great deal of case law behind it. A shack-up marriage is fine if you don’t plan to have children and you have a contract that settles property issues. Of course, it is also unstable since anyone can opt out any time they please.
On the other hand, a marriage contract protects both spouses, children and estates. I am certain people could write their own, but why bother when you already have a well known body of law.
BTW, I am the victim of a no-fault divorce. You have no idea how important that marriage contract is until you marry and divorce a bitch.