Yes, yes. If the state (in this case "the state" meaning the state of FL, TX, etc) did not intervene to resolve situations in which conflict arose in marriages, but instead simply said "yall work it out", there would be chaos and insanity on a level that would amaze you libertarians. People behave very irrationally when passions are inflamed. When disputed arise about the disposition of children, you can't tell someone that they should just solve it "rationally". That has dramatically different meanings to people, esp in severe emotional states. Now, I am a limited govt freedom loving person. If you don't want to get involved in such a contract with state intervention, don't. Be free.

""""It eliminates a *restriction*, ergo it is a vote for freedom. Simple.""" Yes, simple and ridiculous. People are free to do whatever they want NOW. There are no "restrictions", gay marrige is not "illegal". They can have this "contract" between individuals - just not with the state and all the rest of us. Removing a "restriction" about who the government will sanction in a government program (marriage) is not about enhancing freedom. Getting the govenment involved in your relationship is not freedom. You are profoundly confused.

This is not about a "privilege" - the state (reflecting the will of the people), rightly fears the societal chaos that would ensue if people did not engage in some sort of contract that lays out the ground rules for what to do when engaging in this relationship that inflames the greatest of human passions, over which people will engage in violence, that involves joint property - most specifically children. Just as I hope that if you go into business with someone, you will put your agreements in writing, and the state will apply long established and agreed to norms to what you do in the venture. COME ON PEOPLE - before we argue about marriage, at least think about what it is and why we have it.

Good grief. Willful ignornace. The "society" in this case is the state that grants the license. That is the body that creates the rules under which this contract is maintained. The state can't supervise ALL contracts and are not OPMNIPRESENT. Not a profound point. But in the case of marriage, they very well do supervise this one. That is what civil marriage is! I have no idea why you guys want to expand the govt to get it into every other conceivable kind of relationship - primarily to make those in the relationships FEEL GOOD. That is Leviathan. The state is involved in civil marriage because that is the context in which people make babies. And we have decided, to avoid complete societal chaos, to make some rules about that.

Enforcing a contract is supervising. That's what the civil aspect of marriage is. If I try to leave my wife and kids because I want my freedom, the police that come find me and haul me into court are not there for my freedom. Of course marriage is a contract that involves the individuals AND society. The gay movement explicitly wants society to enter into their contract with them. If contracts only applied between individuals, they would be useless. What a strange argument. Or is it an emotional outburst?

So let me get this straight - "gay people" now have more freedom because the government in some states will now supervise their relationships? Folks, marriage is not about freedom. It is a social contract about responsibilities and obligations. The government, at any level, has no significant interest in supervising the relationship between two (or three, or four...) people of the same sex regardless of whether or not they are engaging This is the land of the free and home of the brave - "gay people" can do whatever they want. And yes, shouldn't we all agree that the feds should be big on running national defense? This is circular firing squad insanity. Come on John.