[O]ne need not be a Rawlsian to think that, so long as the state is involved in areas where by libertarian standards it shouldn’t be, there’s a prima facie case for its involvement at least being conducted in as nondiscriminatory manner as possible. Perhaps roads should be privatized, but given that the state is currently building and funding them, they clearly should be open to drivers of all creeds, races, etc.; the analogous point holds for marriage law.
I removed laliberty’s point that the government should be removed from marriage altogether because 1) It’s obvious and 2) It’s completely unhelpful in the current political context. We don’t live in a market-anarchism society, and constantly providing the ideal solution, when it’s plainly obvious that it will never be implemented, isn’t fruitful or particularly relevant.
1) It’s not obvious, as it remains an extremely minority opinion. Most people can’t fathom how things would work without the state’s involvement. They often wonder how things like taxes can be paid or power of attorney can be established without the state issuing stamps of approval - without understanding that they are actually quite simple and separate issues that are easily resolved through free association and contracts.
If you mean that it’s obvious within the quote, fine. But my point in my 1.5 sentences was to explicitly affirm that the ultimate goal is to remove government involvement altogether. In other words, it is a step in the right direction but as the post I link to explained “that, yes, what is “less morally wrong” is better, but it is still not “morally right” - and it is also denying that what is “morally right” is simply fantasy.” Even tabling the concept of morality, the obvious inefficiency of government bureaucracy cannot be denied.
2) Firstly, while the management of roads or the privatization of national defense are perhaps too entrenched in the state system to untangle them without maybe some initial difficulty, the issuing of marriage licenses is hardly that. In fact, it’s one of the more simple areas in which state dominion can be eradicated.
Furthermore (and this is what inspired a response), it is a ridiculously circuitous argument to claim that restoring some freedom cannot be done because we do not live in a “market-anarchism society.” This is much like claiming that one cannot exercise because he is not an athlete. How can the goal itself be a prerequisite to the steps needed to reach that goal?
If you feel that the government does have a proper role in marriage, that people cannot freely associate without state superiors or majority opinion weighing in (which was the point you redacted), then by all means redact away. But please lay off the non-sequiturs.