[Antoninus]

Care to discuss the GOP's departure from Reagan's or Newt's philosophies of government?

There's nothing to discuss. We agree on these issues.

Now if only we could get you folks to admit that two men playing house is a really bad idea that should not be recognized as a "marraige" at any level of government, then we'll be getting somewhere.

[DManA]

I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that marriage is a religious institution and government has no business sanctioning any variety of it.

[Small-L]

You're on Antoninus. I agree that it's a bad idea, and I for one would want no part of it. Now can you explain to me where in the Constitution that it says that government should be dictating what is a marriage and what isn't? Why should married couples be treated any differently by government than two single people who share an apartment? Why should the IRS punish people for filing jointly?

From my point of view (and I'll assert, most small-l) govenment has no role in dictating what marriage is. On the other hand, civil unions should be a legal contract between two individuals, enforceable in court. Marriage should be the province of churches; unions the province of government. Married couples should be able to choose whether or not they want to be a legally-enforceable civil union (with the tax and divorce implications it implies). Churches should be able to decide who they want to marry and who they do not. Politicians have chosen to confuse the two issues by trying to gain votes by writing in (fake) tax benefits for "married" couples.