In reply to a friend�s thoughts on �gay marriage�, I composed a short reply:
[It has been edited to correct a few errors and inessentials.]
The Laws of a proper society are objective and they only prohibit crimes in terms of specific physical acts of physical force. I agree that this means that the law must not intervene with the intellectual or moral life of its citizens, to follow this then is Marriage a proper realm of the Government at all?
The very definition includes “union of a man and woman as husband and wife” and this certainly discriminates other types of unions. A Marriage is one type of the many contracts that men make. It is a very common contract and has become a very special one with many emotive properties. There are already contracts people can make for whatever living arrangements they want. These contracts are similar to Marriages, but is not a Marriage (by its very definition).
But it is the moral ramifications, the legitimacy and sanction that Marriage brings that many of those trying to change the law either desire or want to remove. The idea, though, to create a not-quite-a-real-marriage-but-close does not protect the concept of Marriage. It is simply an invalid multiplication of terms. If you want to remove the moral ramifications that a Marriage brings, you ultimately have to abolish Marriages and form a new Union/Consolidation contract.
So to answer my question about Marriage, yes, the government should uphold the Marriage Contract and all other contracts.