Liberty Alone

In one way I’m glad that California will recognise gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned the state has no business discriminating between unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Civil partnerships are still discrimination, even whilst they are better than an outright ban.

On the other hand, this simply reinforces the idea that marriage is something to be granted to us by the state.
I am firmly of the opinion that the state has no place in regulating our personal relationships in such a way.

The state entering into this role of approval for marriage discriminates against many, not just those who are deemed unable to marry.
There are many who do not wish to get married for philosophical or political reasons. These people cannot benefit from the advantages which marriage brings, despite being in committed, long term relationships, often with children as well.

The state should get out of the whole business of marriage, except as an arbiter of last resort. If people wish to formally confirm their commitment then they can draw up a contract.
If a religious group is opposed to various relationships then they can argue against them to their members and refuse to recognise such relationships. They should not be able to use the power of the state to enforce their views upon others.

As a practical effort however, I applaud the Californian Supreme Court’s decision.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.