Why is it that we continue this worthless debate over what marriage should be as defined by the state? Whether gays should be allowed or just straight traditional couples, seems as though most people just except that the state has the last say on marriage. By that logic, shouldn’t they have the last say on political speech? Should you have a govt paper that authorizes your freedom of speech? Should you be required to have license to own property or a business? To own a house?

Most people don’t submit to those types of logic cause they know it’s total foul hardy. Seriously who would agree to a license requirement for free speech aside from tyrannical statists? Under that, it wouldn’t freedom of speech anymore since the state controls who says what. And yet most on the right and the left submit perfectly to a govt paper that says your married which is essentially no different than single-payer govt healthcare. The state officially owns you, your spouse and your bedroom.

As I’m writing this, SCOTUS is bound to take up same-sex marriage cases from KY, OH, MI & TN which the circuit court there upheld their bans. As is, 36 or 37 states recognize same-sex marriagesĀ (some AL counties are refusing to grant govt papers to gay couples). Many are predicting the Supreme Court will go full equal protection clause and declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right. But regardless what actually happens, I think it time the traditional right and the gay left should consider an alternative route. Privatizing marriage. Give a legitimate reason why the state has to be involved in everybody’s marriages gay or straight.

The marriage state is among the biggest scams ever pulled off by the govt meant to outlaw interracial marriages between blacks and whites. The concept itself actually goes back to the French Revolution. Initially marriage was mainly done by the church, but socialist revolutionaries decided it was the state’s responsibility and cities started issuing civil licenses. The US eventually adopted that system in the early 20th century as means like I said previously to outlaw interracial marriages. Then ultimately became commonly used to penetrate everybody’s bedrooms.

By this point, the traditional right is fighting a losing battle by the strategy they’re pursuing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time. That’s what traditional conservatives are doing in essence. They make the claim redefining marriage means a radical shift in society. I say it doesn’t matter what happens since marriage has been gang banged and mutilated more times by the state than a Game of Thrones character. It would do the traditional right good to actually reconsider what strategy they go for. Going for a federal marriage amendment won’t be any progress as it has a slightly better chance of passage than resurrecting Michael Jackson.

Some states like my own Oklahoma have already introduced marriage privatization measures, though unfortunately didn’t advance far since its author Mike Turner of Edmund ran for the 5th congressional district and lost and left office last year. But this shouldn’t stop other states from considering similar measures. Marriage privatization has long been flung around in libertarian circles (David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote a column about that back in the late 90s). Though the traditional right has a tremendous opportunity to jump in the wagon on advancing marriage privatization. Govt intervention of any sort inevitably ends in total disaster and this is no exception. I should also note that govt marriage hasn’t done well in protecting religious liberty such as the bakeries in CO and OR or the florist in WA or the photographer in NM. I ask the traditional right to consider this proposal.

What do you think? Is there anything I should improve upon? Let me know. Have a great day and God bless!