[GovernmentShrinker]

Actually I sort of doubt that gay marriage supporters would want this couple barred from marrying. Most of them seem to have a completely libertarian viewpoint on relationships (as I do) but overlay that with their socialist tendency to love government involvement in everything, and therefore insist that the government issue them (and everybody else) licenses. Of course, they claim unfairness in government providing certain privileges to married couples that are not provided to unmarried couples. And I'd have a lot of sympathy with that position, if it weren't for the fact that the privileges are offset by all sorts of government meddling that only comes into play with a marriage license, such as tax penalties, government-mandated estate laws, etc. Personally I think anyone who wants the government involved in their domestic life in any way is nutso!

[Snuffington]

Actually I sort of doubt that gay marriage supporters would want this couple barred from marrying.

I think Andrew Sullivan would disagree with you, and he speaks for a lot of gay marriage supporters. He not only says the issues are entirely unrelated, but he insists anyone trying to make the connection is simply diplaying bigotry and homophobia.

Stanley Kurtz, on the other hand (anti-gay marriage), has long contended that you cannot seperate these two issues. He has cited more radical gay marriage advocates who also see the issues as linked, but not for the libertarian reasons you posit. They see it as a tactic to bring about the abolision of marriage as a social structure altogether (because its oppressive, patriarchal, blah-blah etc.). The link for them is that both would serve to discredit marriage, driving it toward being meaningless.

[johnb838]

If there are homo marriages, I'm waiting for the homo divorces. That ought to keep Court TV going for a while, heck they'll need a new channel just to keep up with it.