by Doctor Science
Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who moved here as part of the Free State project, a libertarian movement to relocate to New Hampshire ... said he plans to introduce an amendment on the House floor that would take government entirely out of marriage, instead giving all couples a civil union and leaving marriage up to churches and other religious institutions. That same approach is supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, a libertarian-leaning group that endorsed 107 House members elected in 2010.I have seen this proposal made repeatedly over the years, mostly coming from libertarians or their sympathizers. I have NO CLUE where they are getting the idea that this is a fair, reasonable, straightforward solution, and how it is standing up to even the most cursory examination.
I have been civilly married for almost 25 years. In what respect is my marriage not "marriage" enough to keep the name -- and the protection of a very large and well-established system of law? I haven't been able to find good numbers, but I saw a vague estimate that 1/4 to 1/3 of US marriages are civil ceremonies. Have the people saying "government should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to the religions" completely forgotten about secular, civil marriages? Or do they really, in their hearts, believe that my marriage isn't important, that I wouldn't lose anything if it was defined away?
This topic makes me so angry I can barely see straight. I'd really appreciate it if someone who is less personally implicated by this aggressively stupid and offensive meme could explain to me where it comes from, why soi-disant libertarians think it's a good idea to remove a crucial type of contract out of secular hands, and how the idea can be *stopped* -- besides screaming and ripping people's heads off. Which would be unmannerly.