Let's try a thought experiment. California law "recognizes" marriages of one man and one woman, each of whom is eighteen or older. The parents of one of the authors, now wed for more than fifty years, happened to marry in a state where the law "recognized" a bride of sixteen as old enough to wed. Suppose California "defended" itself against such early marriages by declaring this marriage legally null, should they ever visit that state. Would that make sense, even to the most rabid opponent of early marriages?
Why, in the name of all that we hold sacred, should we ask an institution based upon force - the government - to dictate the terms of so intimate and personal a relationship as marriage?
Two of our dear friends have been together for more than a quarter-century. They live in the same house, they eat dinner and watch TV together, and sleep in the same bed and talk pillow talk; they attend church together; they share many of the same joys and pleasures and challenges as legally married couples. For all intents and purposes, the two think of themselves as a married couple. Their sex lives involve acts which are enjoyed by many married heterosexual couples, and are odd only in that both participants are of the same sex.
Should Pennsylvania or Vermont someday recognize that such relationships are similar enough to other "marriages" to be treated similarly, would it make sense for other states to "defend" marriage by tearing such marriages asunder at their borders? What a strange concept. What would it defend? The fragile mental well-being of some heterosexuals who would feel nervous? Did we not once "protect" some white couples who felt challenged by the concept of two nonwhites, or a mixed-race couple, marrying - acts which were "illegal" for many years?
Rest assured, whether or not the government "recognizes" unions of nonwhites, or of non-heterosexuals, such unions still take place. The parties involved still enjoy intimacy and commitment and love. Both sides of this debate about government "recognition" of marriage are indeed "solutions in search of a problem."
A much better solution would be for the government to get their guns out of our bedrooms, our lives, and our pocketbooks. Marriage is not an act of force and coercion; it is not the proper domain of the government. Marriage is an act of love and consent, the domain of private individuals and their voluntary associations. Marriage needs no "defense" by the government; it needs to be defended from the government.