Nonetheless, gay marriage is coming. 17 States already have it and it seems likely that the Supreme Court is going to make it the law of the land. For good or bad, gay marriage is here to stay.
In June of 2009, I wrote a post about what being a libertarian meant to me. In it, I mentioned gay marriage and made a proposal:
Gay marriage? I think the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. You should get a contract from the government to form a personal corporation with your partner(s). Mormons want plural marriage, gays want same-sex marriage, someone out there might want some arraignment we haven’t thought of yet. (*emphasis added) They get a contract, same as me. Then, find the organization of your choice, religious or not, and there is where you have a marriage, if you want. Same rules for everyone.And now, yesterday, April 29th, 2015, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, was this exchange between Justice Alito and Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer speaking on behalf of a same-sex couple:
Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
Here's the whole discussion. He didn't just suggest 4 people, he specifically suggested 4 lawyers. I think we can all agree that would be unnatural.Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?