That's different - gay marriage is gays imposing their gayness on Ben, so if you think about it, by opposing gay marriage Ben is defending freedom.
The government doesn't have the authority to redefine marriage. They can only stand up for the common law, which is one man and one woman, of marriageable age and no closer than 2nd cousins. That's the English common law definition, which predates the formation of the United States of America.
WRT gay marriage, the government doesn't have the jurisidiction to redefine marriage, as marriage isn't the creation of the government.
The other argument goes is that government shouldn't have any role in enforcing marriage regulations, but that one doesn't fly, at least for the United States. If this were to happen, the US would have to remove all references to marriage, including partner benefits, etc, everywhere the federal government looks to marriage. Including immigration. What gay marriage activists want is something quite different. They want to extend benefits to their favoured class, which is contrary to the desires of any believer in small government.
Remember Loin, I'm not really a authoritarian, Political Compass consistantly ranks me about +5, -2. I'm a fiscal hawk and a social libertarian, by their definitions.
Comment