I think the best answer is this…..because this is also the correct libertarian position (tho many libertarians don’t accept it.)
Marriage is a contract, and it meant certain things as hundreds of millions of people entered into that contract. There is no way all of those millions of contracts should be changed post facto by a perversion of the very definition of those contracts.
Do I understand this correctly?
To the question: “How does gay marriage hurt marriage?” the libertarian answer is: “The marriage contract has already been defined for millions, and this is a change that injures that contract”.
That is similar to Perkins’ answer, but his took the cultural route, “the ideology for generations of the vast majority.”
Libertarians go with contract law. If they had to address “how” it injured the previous contracts, what would they list?