IglooDude said:
In general, we should step back and evaluate whether the laws that have marriage-related clauses should have marriage related laws, first of all.
*chuckle* You know, after I posted my response, it occurred to me that I was arguing "realistic options" with a Libertarian. No offence intended; I think the Libertarians make good sense on some issues, but let's face it, "realistic" is not a word commonly associated with that political movement in any country.
But setting that aside, there is the example of corporations to look at. The status of a corporation as a commercial legal entity can have a parallel as that of a household (I use that term instead of marriage to avoid confusion in this discussion) as a social legal entity. While my knowledge of business law is can be measured with a micrometer, I assume corporations do have to file with appropriate agencies to maintain their status. Perhaps 'households' could do this as well, if they seek the bankruptcy protections marriage currently offers.
They already do. It's called a marriage license. As a pastor of the Church of United Subterranean Dwellers, I can marry you at any time in the eyes of goblins everywhere. But if you want the government to extend the legal rights and benefits of marriage, you'd better show up with marriage license. Otherwise, only my church will recognize you as 'married.'
It sounds like you acknowledge that some aspects of marriage can only properly administered if the government has some way of registering who is married and who isn't. Which is the point I was trying to make. You can't completely divorce marriage and the state, because the state of marriage is too deeply ingrained in our legal and cultural system. People may think of marriage as a religious institution, and it certainly has a religious side, but it's also a very secular one, and one deeply important to the state.
What "state function" does marriage serve, exactly?
Originally, the state started getting involved in marriage because it became relevant to taxation. (and obviously still is) As a Libertarian, you presumably disagree with most modern taxation, so those arguments obviously don't hold much sway. But as I've demonstrated, marriage is important to the state in a variety of other ways. It brings a whole host of legal rights and obligations with it. The state cannot simply turn a blind eye to the institution.
The crux of my argument is not that marriage should be stripped from any consideration at all by the state, but rather that the state should not have the authority to decide which consenting adults can and cannot get married.
And the English language fails us again. I can't tell in what sense you are using the word married. Because it really does mean two different things. As it stands, the government cannot stop you from getting 'married' in a church. Nor should they. Religion should remain outside of government. But the government can refuse to give you a marriage license. Given that acquiring this license grants you several benefits and rights from the state, I cannot fathom how you can deny the state the right to determine who gets these licenses.
