I do, and as I pointed out, your position is contrary to the concept of limited government. You wish to have a burden imposed by government where no compelling reason exists.

Civil marriage is a mechanism for fostering (some might say coercing) monogamy among those likely to breed. There is no call for the government imposing itself upon other types of relationships in such a manner.

By the way, Kip, I followed the links to some of your own blog entries on this. You’d be a more effective advocate for this cause if your rage weren’t so palpable in your rhetoric.

“I disagree with the policy of the legislature” is not the same as alleging that a constitutional guarantee has been violated. The issue isn’t whether the legislature had a reason for its action, but whether the challenge to the legislation was supported by a showing that there was no reason for the legislature’s act, By pretending otherwise, you’re doing no more than paying lip service to the rational basis analysis which is appropriate here. You’re actually applying something that more closely resembles strict scrutiny, putting the burden where it doesn’t belong, on the state, rather than the individual challenging the legislation.

And finally — an analogy between upholding warrantless searches undertaken by police, on the one hand, and deference to a legislative act which retains a traditional definition of marriage, on the other? Forget about about absurdity disguised as fact. Here we have a real live case of absurdity (badly) disguised as constitutional analysis.

[Kip replies: I am a libertarian despite, not because of, my legal education. Still, I have never found the two to be inconsistent.

You either believe in limited government, or you don’t. You either believe that there are some lines that the majority may not cross, or you don’t. You either believe that individual rights exist independent of government, or you don’t. You either believe that judges striking down irrational laws is part and parcel of the democratic process, or you don’t.

You don’t. Message received.

Let’s hope you’re always one of the wolves and never one of the sheep when it comes time to vote on what’s for dinner.]

This assumes that we are talking about benefits. Anyone who’s been through the special hell of divorce court realizes that civil marriage is really an imposition by government, and any benefits exist merely to soften the blow.

As such, the finding that there is a compelling public interest served by opposite sex marriage justifies that imposition, and the limitation of the compelling interest justifies the limitation of the imposition.

The position will be wholeheartedly embraced by the first member of an “economically diverse” same sex marriage seeking to leave the relationship with his/her wealth intact.

There is Canadian data that show a much higher (a factor between 10 and 100) homocide rate when the parent and murdered child were not biologically related.

Justice Smith erred in the New York case. My second wife could not have children because of complications from a miscarriage (She did have a healthy daughter in her first marriage.) and I had a vasectomy, yet we got married for the employment benefits. Reproduction is highly coupled to marriage, but is not the be-all and end-all thereof.

Further, the Canadian data would speak only to foster care, including adoption. Children are not taken wily-nily from natural parents and given to others. Justice Smith constructed a straw man when he said that natuaral parents are better than gay couples.