No this isn’t an unrecorded verse of John Lennon’s Imagine, it’s a supposition based on the entire matter of the role of the state in the lives of individuals. Most libertarians, would argue, and rightly so, that the state should have the least amount of involvement possible in the daily lives of its citizens. So long as the actions of one individual do not interfere with the rights and privileges of another, such actions should not fall within the purview of the state.

Nowhere has this unnecessary intrusion been more illustrated than in the ongoing debate over gay marriage, or whether or not states should recognize unions between same-sex couples. Since that debate began to rage we have seen the Congress attempt to usurp the authority of the states to ban homosexual marriage and numerous debates on the state level. In realty, the debate has no place at any level of government. Quite simply…marriage should not be defined one way or the other by the state. Marriage is a personal matter involving a commitment between two individuals. Historically, marriage was viewed as a spiritual matter, long before married couples received favored treatment by the state, marriage was simply a sacrament of the church, not unlike baptism. And just like baptisms, the matter was outside the realm of government bureaucracy. Naturally, Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faiths have and continue hold both similar and contrasting views on matters of marriage.

Over the course of several centuries, two things happened, marriage became secularized and the state became involved in defining marriage. Before long, one could not marry without the blessing of the state, indeed, over the course of many generations, the state sought to forbid certain unions, particularly those involving people of different faiths, ethnicities or race. At this point the state began to usurp the individual rights of free people with free will.

However, unrealistic it may be, the state should divorce itself from the practice of defining marriage, just as the state should divorce itself from all such practices that interfere with an individual’s right to live their lives in the manner they see fit. As a spiritual matter, marriages should be defined by the particular faith of which one practices (or does not practice). Most importantly married couples should not be granted special favors or favored treatment by the state over their single counterparts, no more than people of a certain race or gender should be favored by the state.

If, for legal purposes two people desire to pool their assets, share liabilities or make arrangements for the management of their estate, or for child rearing, the state could recognize a separate contractual partnership, which would protect the assets of both partners and ensure their wishes are carried out in the event of their demise (Similar to France’s Pacte civil de solidarité.) That should be the extent of the state’s interference. As to the matter of gay marriage, once again this would be a matter for the individuals in question, if a church, synagogue, etc…chooses to recognize homosexual unions, that is a matter for that group or organization, not the state. For if we allow the state to define or restrict marriage in any form, are we not opening the door for the state to dictate other aspects of our lives as well? Who we befriend, where we work, how we worship, where we live, how we live, who we live with, etc…
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20214