If the government grants marriage licenses, it should not discriminate issuance thereof based on race (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) or gender (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). If the recent Supreme Court decision was a defeat for the Constitution, then the decision to legalize interracial marriages in 1967 was also a defeat for the Constitution.
Marriage is a legal contract which imbues rights and benefits which include:
- tax benefits, when you file jointly with your spouse
- estate planning benefits, including inheritance rights
- government benefits, including receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for your spouse
- employment benefits, such as obtaining health insurance through your spouse's employer and the right to take medical leave to care for a spouse who becomes ill
- decision-making benefits, including the right to make medical decisions if your spouse is incapacitated
- financial support, including equitable property division in a divorce
- consumer benefits, such as family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. (1)
Beyond a sacrament, marriage has secular functions in society.
Should we deny legal rights based on the gender of the parties when issuing a marriage contract? Some people have ambiguous gender. Is it the libertarian view that the government should check your genitalia to determine eligibility?
Asserting that the government shouldn't issue any marriage license at all is suspect with respect to timing. Doubtful that Ron Paul or his son Rand ever brought this up before, but all of a sudden, when gays can get married, they invent and espouse a convoluted argument based on Libertarian Principles that the government shouldn't issue any marriage licenses?
I am disappointed that Ron and his son missed the opportunity to celebrate this landmark decision as an expansion of our liberty.