As everyone already knows, the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right according to the 14th amendment. Obviously progressive leftists and gay rights activists were in overwhelming celebration while traditionalist conservatives condemned it for judicial activism and called for a constitutional amendment that would protect states’ rights to define marriage however they wish within their borders. In principle, I’m not against the idea and in fact could be used to prevent other abuses from this federal govt (such as the EPA, Obamacare, BLM etc).

However a more practical solution in relating same-sex marriage is simply this: END GOVT INVOLVEMENT WITH MARRIAGE. Historically the state hasn’t been involved with marriage anyway. Only relatively recently (the last century or two) have governments started getting involved with conducting and recognizing marriages via a piece of paper called a “license”. And then that expanded further with marriage benefit laws (there’s nearly 2,000 federal laws alone that deal with legal marriage). The idea of govt marriage started out in revolutionary-era France. Prior it was the Catholic Church and private entities that performed marriages. The state wasn’t really involved so much. Then it changed afterwards.

Eventually this idea made its way over to the United States and states started banning interracial marriages between blacks and whites. This was primarily pushed by progressives in the early 20th century and eventually expanded over to controlling people’s lives in their bedrooms. The Supreme Court eventually struck down what interracial marriage bans still stood in the 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia. But the marriage state stuck around and that eventually gave way to the most decision from the Supreme Court on gay marriage. The traditionalist right easily fell into this trap set by progressives at the beginning of the last century. They started campaigning for and successfully passing bans against same-sex marriage whether via statue or state constitutional amendment.

At one point during the Bush years, there was strong push for a federal marriage amendment which would’ve only perpetuated the marriage state further. That ultimately fizzled out as an issue after 2008, though traditionalist conservative organizations like NOM or FRC have advocated passing a marriage amendment in the scenario the Supreme Court declares nationwide gay marriage. My plea to the traditionalist right is to stop falling for the folly that is the marriage state. No one should have to ask the govt’s permission to get married. I don’t care if you’re gay or straight, the govt has no right to be in your bedroom. Which is why I support measures similar to what recently passed the AL State Senate overwhelmingly. What it does essentially is phase out the marriage license with a contract which couples have full control to decide the terms of the relationship in a legal sense.

There was also another bill introduced here in Oklahoma which would’ve done something similar in nature with replacing the marriage license with a private contract of sorts. While it passed the State House, it didn’t get a vote by the State Senate before the session ended last month so that’ll have to wait until the 2016 legislative session. There’s also another plausible option short of outright privatizing marriage through a state legislature; civil refusal to be part of the govt marriage complex. Couples have actually gotten without getting a govt license or approval such as this couple that wed at Porcfest in NH several years ago. If/when I get married someday, I’ll be doing the same of civilly refusing govt marriage license (assuming my spouse was in full accord with me).

While the SCOTUS decision itself is just meh to me, there’s an aspect about it that seriously concerns me. The religious freedom angle. While Anthony Kennedy said churches can continue speaking out and refusing to participate in same-sex weddings, there’s no real guarantee that businesses and churches won’t be sued by gay fascist activists as they’ve already done so numerous times in CO, NM, WA and OR. After same-sex marriage was legalized in NJ, a church lost its tax exemption because they refused to perform same-sex weddings. So with the SCOTUS decision, this’ll only get crazier and more widespread. Similar cases have happened in other countries. In Canada, Christian pastors are banned from speaking in public. In the UK, Christian businesses have been shut down for declining to service same-sex couples. This is only another reason why getting govt out of marriage is a real and true solution to the problem.

All these religious/civil liberty violations have been happening for the past couple years because the state is in marriage. Take the state out of it and this wouldn’t be this insane. Now businesses at large should be allowed to deny service to whoever for whatever reason they please, but this is it’s own issue in of itself which I’ve gone in depth to before.

It’s time that the GOP, traditional conservatives everywhere start considering stateless marriage as a viable option to explore. State legislatures are starting to look at it with interest so there’s no reason for the GOP to talk about it. The Democrats won’t even flirt the thought as their real intention is to keep government tied to everything possible including marriage. Now skeptics of stateless marriage will ask how will divorce, alimony and legal custody of children be worked out? Well that’s something the free market will figure out with due time. I trust it much more to handle a sacred institution like marriage than a big, blundering, corrupt, clumsy govt. The state is essentially a big lumbering, clumsy dinosaur after the meteor hits. The free market to contrast is like smaller and faster mammal or bird that evolves and adapts much more efficiently when conditions change radically.

To make a final note, I ask this question to traditionalist conservatives: What good does govt do being involved with marriage? If it shouldn’t be in your healthcare, then logically shouldn’t be in your bedroom either. Please consider these points. Let’s make a serious effort to get govt out of marriage state by state. Besides, the Supreme Court (or any other court for that matter) has never that states couldn’t just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone.

Anything I missed that I should’ve mentioned or corrected? Comment your thoughts below. Have a great day and God bless! Also check Jeffrey Tucker’s take on this matter.

UPDATE: Here’s Ron Paul’s take on the same-sex marriage decision in which he essentially makes the same for stateless marriage. And Rand Paul has finally made his position on stateless marriage absolutely clear.