Obiwan -
Agreed, but as MtG has pointed out, the state does have cause to be involved with regards to inheritance, the transfer of property, etc, since these are not strictly social institutions.
I'm not one of these people who believes in "gay marriage" since "marriage" has, as far as I know, always been between men and women. But aside from that aspect, I see no relevant difference between heterosexual and homosexual behavior wrt government.
Why? Let's deal with the issue and leave marriage out of it since that is just a social contract. Why is homosexuality and polygamy different wrt "privacy"? I think Santorum was right when he lumped homosexuality together with bygamy and polygamy, one of his mistakes was that he didn't begin his argument with heterosexual sex. If adults have a privacy right to engage in heterosexual sex (which he undoubtedly accepts), then there's no valid reason to claim adults don't have the right to engage in homosexual sex, bygamy, and polygamy. But he ignored the sex engaged in by the majority...including it would have only served to highlight that he was advocating unequal treatment under the law.
The state does have the right to regulate marriage, because marriage is a social institution recognised by the state.
Sodomy is quite different, as sex between two men.
This right to intervene wrt marriage means that bigamy and polygamy fall outside the 'privacy' concerns with sodomy, hence Santorium's arguments fall apart.
Comment