How about answering my question, or did you read it?
Do Libertarians (with a capital L) support homosexual marriage?
Perhaps some do, but I don't think the national LP has anything on it in their platform. It's always been, as far as I can tell, a state matter, as marriage is supposed to be.
Except that before the states intervened and required blood tests, birth certificates, etc., couples were usually married in a church and their union was duly recorded in church records. The gummint could have cared less.
All that seems to have changed since the income tax began and married couples got (for a while) a financial break, thus the need to "certify" that a man and his wife are married.
Do you really think this was a deciding issue in the Washington election? Would it have been for you?
Here it is in a nutshell: libertarians (with a capital "L" or without) support FREEDOM. On ALL subjects, ALL the time. This makes them some enemies on the Right as well as the Left. Opposing gun control, economic regulations, incessant taxation and the welfare state creates some overlap between "conservatives" and "libertarians"... Opposing the drug war, military adventurism, "obscenity" laws and other infringements of free speach creates some overlap with so-called "liberals" (a term that has been pretty much despoiled by now, alas)on the left.
Some would take these apparently opposite tendencies as a sign of political schizophrenia, but with a little more attention you'll see that (whether you agree with them or not) there is in fact a common thread: the individual's right to live his/her life the way he/she chooses provided (s)he does not harm the person or property of anyone else, or threaten the liberty of anyone else to live THEIR life as they choose. It's real basic, and it's the American ideal in shorthand. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only truly consistent philosophy... aside from, say, total socialism, at the other end of the spectrum, that is. The notion of what's "conservative" or "liberal" at a given point in history changes, sometimes drastically, as time moves on, but if one knows the basic tenets of libertarianism, one can ALWAYS determine the libertarian position on any given issue.
Remember, it was the "Conservatives" of 1776 who opposed this upstart revolution. Those radical libertarians (already quoted above by "logician2u" I believe) were in fact "traitors" to the crown, and about as politically "kooky" as it got back then.
So how does this translate to the idea of ammending our Constitution to ensure that Steve and Bob can never be legally married (ie using the coercive power of government to prevent an essentially peaceful, voluntary union that does not threaten the person, property or liberty of anyone else)? Well, what do you think the libertarian position is?
Believe it or not there is often a great deal of disagreement among libertarians (big "L" and little) over specific issues, usually which ones to emphasize in the greater battle for freedom, and the gay marriage issue is no exception. The best idea I've heard so far is also (unsurprisingly) the most radical: why don't we simply get government out of the marriage business entirely? Discontinue the notion of "legally recognized" (ie government sanctioned) marriage in favor of a simplified legal contract regarding property, etc. and leave the "matrimony" aspect to whatever religious or social organizations currently endow the REAL marriage anyway. Your church can still refuse to marry Laura and Lisa, while my church may opt to... as far as the government is concerned, two citizens have entered into a contract, THAT'S IT. Stay out of our lives. For a religious person, it is the blessing of the Allmighty that makes the marriage, not the godless State. That piece of paper from the Justice of the Peace is just that. The social phenomenon of marriage (whether religious or not) is what defines it, not some bureaucratic file number.
Can I get and "amen"?