The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Quite right.

(See in situ)

Quite right.

Separate the pragmatic and the idyllic.

In a perfect world, marriage would be a life long covenant between two people, before God, recognised by the community.

It's not. Currently, it could be put as a standing arrangement between two people, before the State, recognised by the community .

In the first case, the state has no say, and the community recognises what it will; this is idyllic and utterly irrelevant to the person asking the question.

In the second, the person asking the question is asking how they can be forced by the state into recognising as marriage something they believe is not. Irrespective of your agreement with them or not, forcing them through the power of the state to recognise that relationship as a marriage is not libertarian but statist in nature.

Yes, the current arrangement forces people not to recognise gay marriage as marriage. That is also statist in nature, but you don't undo statism by layering it with more statism. You actually have to go back and unpick the laws which force people to accept the government's definitions and restrictions, not just change the laws which are repugnant to liberty into other laws which are differently repugnant to liberty.