Eric Meyer has a well-thought-out piece on gay marriage. I agree with most of what he says. I think he might be surprised to find that a number of people on the libertarian-conservative side would also agree. With, of course, the caveat that we don’t think the state should be licensing personal relationships in the first place. But I also understand that the state is a bit too entangled in the business at the moment to just dump it. His third-to-last paragraph is what I agree with.
Something I’ve seen making the rounds is the idea that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, and instead grant legal recognition to civil unions (both hetero- and homosexual). Of course, if a couple chooses to marry in a church or other setting, they would be entirely free to do so. The point here would be that the civil unions would have the current status marriages hold—the rights, privileges, and burdens that come with being recognized as a married couple would be conferred upon these unions. Marriage would be made a more personal and spiritual act, one that every church could perform for whomever they choose. Some could restrict it only to opposite-gender couples, while others might only marry same-sex couples. Or, and here’s a radical concept, a church might choose to marry any two people who love each other enough to undertake so serious a commitment.
That would, as he points out in the next paragraph, require some conservatives to live with something they don’t like. It would also produce an outcry from those who insist on gay marriage and probably some outcry from those who were married but would suddenly be in civil unions. I suspect everyone would adjust quickly enough; though probably with a lot of complaint. And it would solve my long-term complaint that marriage is a religious institution that should not be administered by the state. 
One Comment
The gay marriage issue is often spoken of from the “what’s wrong with it?” view. What about looking at this from the opposite side of things?
The state should (and does) administer things that are beneficial to society.
With that in mind, does marriage provide a benefit to society?
My personal belief is that widespread contraception has led to a changing of minds within our society. Prior to the 1960’s marriages tended to result in children. The societal benefit was a permanance in the relationship between the mother and father that was viewed as necessary in the development of a child. This is also a global phenomina. Now there is much less of a link between the societal benefit of marriage, and so we digress into our “what’s the difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage?” argument.
I think that the argument should be: Why should the state continue to administer marriage? If there is a benefit to society, I’m all for it. If not, what’s the point?