LOL !
Liberal Republicans on bong water = Libertarian.
That's correct. You see people fail to see that the only reason that Government grants marriage licenses is because of marriage's link to procreation. Absent marriage's link to procreation, there would be no need to grant marriage licenses in the first place. Marriage licenses are not about getting government goodies, or getting public affirmation of a behavior. Instead, marriage licenses are intended to provide for the best interests of children. When homo-activsts and their allies argue "But, But we don't force anyone to procreate" They sadly miss the point. The Vital purpose of Marriage is not to mandate procreation but instead it's to control its consequences, this is called the "private welfare" purpose. The insistance on maintaining otherwise is absurd, and purposely ignores that Central to the Institution of Marriage is indeed the act of procreation.
There can be no denying what is the underlying purpose of homo-activists on this issue. They are seeking public recognition and affirmation of a private relationship. It is the very essence of the battle that is being waged. Any talk of governmental benefits is necessarily a red herring. The real goal is changing the essence of marriage to seek societal and governmental approval of a particular type of relationship. Libertines are completely in favor of this.
What is interesting however, is that even libertines and homo-activists have acknowledged that marriage is much more than a merely private declaration, instead it is an act of public significance and consequence for which the State exerts an important regulatory role. Indeed the very fact that the homos are seeking official assent, recognition and approval of their relationship, by the state, is to concede the authority of those whose regard is sought. Throughout the history of our law, it is clear that marriage has secular implications (IE: governmental benefits) therefore State does have a legitimate interest in determining eligibility criteria for entrance into that institution. As a result there are numerous reasons for limiting unfettered access to marriage. Otherwise, by allowing the multiplicity of human choices that bear no resemblance to marriage to qualify, the institution would become non-recognizable and unable to perform its vital function. This is the reason that the States can Constitutionally ban bigamous marriages, common law marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to persons adjudged to be mentally incompetent, or even marriages that have a partner infected with a venereal disease in a communicable stage. The governmental interest in these restrictions has been repeatedly and widely recognized.