Conservatives have frowned at the recent wave of judicial decisions regarding the bans on same-sex marriage.
But why would people complain about a system functioning well? After all, it was "judicial activism" that overrode the first New Deal, Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriages (which was invoked in many decision) and the criminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts.
Gay rights proponents at the Supreme Court. (Image Source: Getty Images)
Others will claim that permitting same-sex marriage is an attack on the sanctity of marriage.
What sanctity are we talking about, exactly? The obligation of a woman to "know" her brother-in-law? The permission to marry the virgin a man rapes, minus a compensation to the father? Or the one to soldiers to abduct all virgins from a village after killing everyone else?
Furthermore, marriage has evolved through the years. Before the Renaissance, they were mostly done for convenience - so kings could strengthen their domains with alliances and queens had little say in the matter. In short, marriage was a transfer of property from the father to the husband.
But since Henry VIII, the idea that marriages are not eternal started to gain strength. And with the raise of capitalism and contracts, marriages became a way for two people to bond their lives together with mutual responsibility.
In addition, unless I miss that detail, I never saw any obligation from governments compelling any church to celebrate same-sex unions. Doing so would have been a gross violation of the First Amendment and you would have seen me protest against that blatant violation of the separation of Church and State.
Undue State Intervention
Beyond those protests (and beyond liberals' celebration of this path towards "marriage equality"), no one seems to be asking a key question: Why is the state involved in marriage?
"Encouraging people to have children" is a rather weak reason. In New France, in order to boost the population, Intendant Jean Talon strongly encouraged people to get married at age 12 for girls and age 14 for boys. Failing to do so resulted in heavy fines. The policy was successful and the population doubled... but was there any love in those marriages? And could the "lack" of population in comparison to New England be a clue that people didn't care about those "few acres of snow"?
Moments after being married outside the U.S. Supreme Court building, Amanda Adams (2nd L) and her wife Libby Enloe, of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, pose for photographs with Marriage Equality USA Executive Director Brian Silva (L) and loveandpride.com's Ross Kasper on Capitol Hill July 24, 2013 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images
Besides, when couples do want to have children, they don't need an arbitrary piece of paper showing that they won't have "bastard" children. All Millenial females in my family that have children have been in steady relationships - one for at least 10 years - and never got married.
Also, if marriages are to happen for the sole purpose of reproduction of the species, then it needs to be strictly regulated to keep post-menopause/andropause people and those that are sterile from getting married.
So in order to keep the state from further infringing on people's liberties, and to equally anger liberals and conservatives, I submit this daring proposal: Separate the state from marriage.
The only responsibility public officials would have towards marriages would be the enforcement of contracts. There would be absolutely no fiscal incentives towards married couples, or it would at least be like Canada - married and common-law couples have the same deductions.
Churches of all denominations would be free to celebrate (or not) marriages. If more than two consenting adults want to get married, they would be free to do so. After all, polygamy is largely accepted in the Bible.
In short, don't worry about going down imaginary slippery slopes with a larger recognition of same-sex marriages. It's always going to be a decision made by consenting, adult human beings so zoophilia and paedophilia/incest will not be legalized in Western countries.
Why deny two loving and consenting adults the bliss of uniting their lives together?
PierreGuy Veer is a Canadian-born libertarian now living in Idaho. His ideas have stirred up debates both in French and in English. You can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or follow him on Twitter @le_moutongris
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.