I'm disappointed with Dan Savage's response to the letter in Savage Love from the woman seeking rebuttal to the "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage would lead to polygamy.

I do not speak for all libertarians, but my views do tend to be on the libertarian side of liberalism. Dan's argument against the libertarian view unnecessarily alienates a natural ally of gay marriage. And does so for the implied reason that gay marriage is not so much about the freedom of consenting adults but instead about seeking the governments sanctification of gay unions. Further he disparages polygamy as a danger to children in exactly the same way boneheads do about gays, and the mayor does about strip-club patrons. I guess any preference not your own is one that must make us all think of the children, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

The libertarian view, or at least my view, is that in the area of family law the government should be in the business of adjudicating contracts between consenting adults and advocating for the interests of children. That the role of determining which unions are sacred and which are profane should be a matter for the various churches.

Now this view does admit polygamy into the range of options consenting adults might consider. Also, say, communes.

The problem with marriage today is that it offers financial benefits to a narrow class of relationships. Dan's argument would expand that class of relationships to include gays. But what about the case of two spinster sisters who live together all of their adult lives? If one is entitled to a pension that might include benefits to a spouse, well the other is just out of luck.

The libertarian view treats people as individuals, free to enter into contracts of their own choosing, and when disputes arise they may seek redress in court.

Dan's view takes the tradition of marriage as evolved from the time when only white males were fully recognized as persons under the law, with women and children, slaves and farm animals, treated as owned property. Just like the bible says. Dan's view would evolve that tradition a bit further.

The libertarian view removes the sanctity or lack thereof as an issue for the government, and would treat marriage as a contract between consenting adults. This would essentially abolish marriage as a legal concept separate from the prenuptial agreement. Which would then not be a prenuptial agreement, but instead just an agreement of mutually acceptable terms. This is far more radical than simply including gay partnerships to "traditional" marriage, yet it might be more politically achievable.

The sanctification of the union would occur in your house of worship, not the courthouse. And depending on which house of worship you walk in to, you may find that they would prefer to sanctify polygamy. Like the Bible says.

We hope you enjoyed this article. Please take the time to review it right below on the left.