Personally, I don't want anything to do with your gubment marriages. My old lady and I have our own private arrangement, and we do just fine without your statist institutions in our lives. BTW she's hapa haole, but it's OK... based on other members of her family, they pretty much come out white after a couple generations of dilution.
I am glad to see libertarianism winning OSA over. Back when I joined this site, threads like this were invariably dominated by the view that TWAWKI would fall apart without government permission slips being required to form marital unions, and that permission being conditioned on majoritarian religious norms. Now that view seems to be a minority... or if a majority, a silent one, many of whose members' beliefs are shaken enough that they don't defend them. I suppose this bodes well for liberty, to the extent OSA is a microcosm of our society at large.
Changing the legal definition of marriage is not the way I want to see this problem answered, though. Stripping the State of the power to define marriage at all is the only way to have true equal protection, if that is really the court's concern.
Also, I have very mixed feelings about the central government imposing rules on us out here in Oklahoma. I like the result when they act to limit the power of government, but it is a double edged sword... intervention from the national government is even more frequently used to increase government intervention in our lives. I am a lot more of a fan of the Articles of Confederation than I ever have been of the Constitution, and am very much a secessionist. Here in the Age of Statism, liberty is best protected by as much of a decentralized system as possible. If people are persecuted by one government in such a system, they are a lot more likely to be able to find another society that is more welcoming elsewhere.
I am glad to see libertarianism winning OSA over. Back when I joined this site, threads like this were invariably dominated by the view that TWAWKI would fall apart without government permission slips being required to form marital unions, and that permission being conditioned on majoritarian religious norms. Now that view seems to be a minority... or if a majority, a silent one, many of whose members' beliefs are shaken enough that they don't defend them. I suppose this bodes well for liberty, to the extent OSA is a microcosm of our society at large.
Changing the legal definition of marriage is not the way I want to see this problem answered, though. Stripping the State of the power to define marriage at all is the only way to have true equal protection, if that is really the court's concern.
Also, I have very mixed feelings about the central government imposing rules on us out here in Oklahoma. I like the result when they act to limit the power of government, but it is a double edged sword... intervention from the national government is even more frequently used to increase government intervention in our lives. I am a lot more of a fan of the Articles of Confederation than I ever have been of the Constitution, and am very much a secessionist. Here in the Age of Statism, liberty is best protected by as much of a decentralized system as possible. If people are persecuted by one government in such a system, they are a lot more likely to be able to find another society that is more welcoming elsewhere.