[brbethke]

That's the essence of my argument. In this country, marriage is two different things:

• civil marriage, which is a contract between two people to essentially form a peculiar form of limited corporation with certain tax and benefits implications and a body of law that governs the distribution of the assets in the event of the dissolution of the partnership, and
   
• religious marriage, which is a sacrament whose terms are defined by the denomination or sect to which you belong

Most of the current hysteria over gay marriage seems to be coming from people who can't distinguish between the two ideas and who are demanding that the state regulate a religious sacrament, thereby conceding that the state has the legitimate right to do so.

As a Christian and a libertarian, I say, let consenting adults form whatever kind of stupid legal partnerships they want to. Just don't force my church to bless the resulting mess.

[Mamzelle]

hypothetical (and I believe it will come to this shortly)--

Your adult daughter has been married about ten years, she and her husband have a couple kids. Bigamy is decriminalized, and there is no longer any civil penalty (as in divorce) for adultery.

Your son-in-law brings home his next "bride" to share the home with your daughter and grandchildren. Your daughter finds out that she has no legal means to kick out the new woman, and not only that, but her property has now been diminished because community property would split it three ways. So even a divorce wouldn't help her much.

It'll happen . There was a reason that marriage was defined the way it was--libertarians think they can just willy-nilly make the world adjust to their philosophical whims...

[Varda]

The reason societies "sanction" marriage is that it is a social institution that is the means for the perpetuation of every society. It is therefore a very public institution. As the article points out it is neither a religious institution or a contract (although those conditions are often grafted onto marriage).

[longtermmemmory]

newsflash, governement ONLY recognizes civil marriage. It has no recognition for any religion marriage.

The priest is acting in their capacity as a notary to solemize the relationship. The "ceremony" needs nothing more than signatures and a witness.

The issue is one of rasing children and inheritence, this is part of the "least" in governance that is required.

Your statements about a "sacrement" and governemtn have no basis in current reality for at least a couple hundred years.

[BikerNYC]

Just don't force my church to bless the resulting mess.

Nice post. I agree.