That’s about enough.
Taking your argument and extending it, why on Earth should the government have civil unions at all? If you’re really a libertarian and not a leftist troll, then you probably don’t support tax breaks for married couples, government health insurance, and the like. Why should there be a thing such as joint filing? As for “divorce”, why shouldn’t each person’s property belong to him/herself when people decide to split up? What’s the libertarian justification for alimony or child support? Why couldn’t joint ownership of a home be handled on its own without the obsolete ideas of “union”? Come on now, live the libertarian dream. Every person for himself.
Also, on the issue of this California decision, let’s just get to the chase, because whether or not one supports this decision isn’t the real issue. The only issue most non-Californians give a dang about is whether the federal courts will eventually shove gay marriage down their states’ throats. In light of that, do you think the US Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to gay couples if they make them available to straight couples? That’s what this is really about.
P.S. I really only care about your answer to the last question concerning the federal Constitution.
Maybe the government shouldn’t have civil unions. Maybe it’s better it simply recognizes contracts between couples (call them whatever you like), and is available to intervene in the event of a dispute over assets or custody. If children were adequately protected, I’d be open to that argument.
Is there any reason the word “marriage,” with it’s religious connotations, needs to be applied to any kind of state-recognized civil partnership?
I disagree that most non-Californians are worried about federal courts “shoving gay marriage” down their throats. Most Americans aren’t terribly concerned about gay marriage, and many Americans support it. Most Americans are against amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. As it stands now, the federal government’s authority to require states to recognize same-sex marriage is up for debate, but I suspect the issue will be left up to individual states for a long time.
Younger generations are overwhelmingly more supportive of same-sex marriage than older generations. I think, 20 or 30 years from now, gay marriage opponents will be seen in the same sort of light interracial marriage opponents are today, gay couples will have the same rights as straight couples, and it will be largely a non-issue. We’ll see.