What is the core purpose of state recognition of marriage? Think about it for a second. Certainly the state has no compelling interest in helping people to “affirm their love”, so why, then, is the state in the marriage business? Why do governments the world over confer specific benefits upon married persons? These are the questions which ought to be at the centre of the debate over gay “marriage.”

It is fashionable for supporters of gay marriage to make statements to the effect that, while the state must recognize “equal marriage”, individual religions ought to be free to do what they like (IE refuse to recognize same-sex marriages). This, in fact, is entirely backwards. Religions (and other groups) recognize marriage for any number of reasons (including the affirmation of “love”). The state, on the other hand, has a single reason for recognizing marriage: to protect procreative relationships and to create an environment conducive to the raising of children.

This is the reason why governments grant benefits to go along with marriage: in order to assist families. That’s it: the government isn’t giving people a wedding present; they’re trying to ensure family stability and assist in the raising of children.

Now, I fully realize that this will bring the inevitable rejoinder, “but infertile couples, the childless and old people are allowed to marry!” This is true. But, alas, this is merely the inevitable consequence of state marriage. That such people are allowed marriage benefits from the state is a side-effect, not the intent.

In any case, as has been clearly established in recent years, the “benefits” of marriage are simply an excuse, not the reason, for homosexual marriage. Civil Unions, domestic partner benefits, and all manner of other solutions have been devised to appease gays and their supporters by giving them the benefits of marriage. But that isn’t the point.

The problem is that homosexuals are trying to use marriage to confer legitimacy upon themselves. That is the core issue at hand. That is why the very word, “marriage” matters. What they are seeking is the endorsement of the state. They are seeking a piece of paper from the state that they can wave and shout, “See, our relationships are indistinguishable from heterosexual ones.”

Tolerance is perfectly alright. I’d suggest that more than 99% of the people in the United States are willing to “tolerate” homosexuality in the sense that they are perfectly happy to allow homosexuals to do as they like in private, away from everybody else. This, quite frankly, is the absolute maximum which should be expected of any group of people in relation to any sexual practice.

Why is homosexuality a “lifestyle” worthy of state protection and, for example, sado-masochism, a sexual fetish? Is it merely that homosexuals have better PR? If the sado-masochists were well organized, would we be seeing demands that the 13th Amendment be repealed in order to “recognize the legitimate relationships between masters and slaves?”

I agree that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. This principle, however, cuts both ways: just as the state should not invade the sexual privacy of individuals, it ought not be used as a tool to force other to accept the legitimacy of any sexual practice.

I fail to see any distinguishing line between homosexuality and any of a hundred other forms of sexual deviancy. I do not use “deviancy” as a pejorative, I simply use it to refer to any practice which deviates from the norm: the sexual ‘norm’ in this case being procreative sex.

Now, there may or may not be anything wrong with any of these deviant practices: and, so long as they remain consensual and private, there’s state interest which should result in interference. But, that being said, there should be no state recognition of these practices either.

Libertarians who support gay marriage miss the point: the coercive use of state power in this case is not the denial of marriage “rights” to homosexuals, it is the efforts of a tiny minority to use the state to impose public acceptance of their sexual practices upon the majority that is the tyranny here.

The real problem with the gay marriage argument is that the other side has been allowed to claim all the best words and set the battlefield of the argument. To claim that disallowing gay “marriage” is a denial of rights, one must believe that the purpose of marriage is to reward heterosexual relations (as opposed to the result of said relations).

Individuals are free to solemnize their love in any fashion that they, or any other private organization, wishes to do so. This is right and proper. If some “church” wants to marry homosexuals, they are perfectly free to do so. However, it would be an abuse of the purpose of marriage to confer its rights and responsibilities upon those who do not conform to the minimal standard demanded.