ABSTRACT
Confusion over the meaning of marriage has given new energy to the idea of “freedom to marry.” The concept takes several forms. As one Massachusetts advocate of a pluralistic bent has phrased it, “the right to love and to celebrate our relationships, in whatever form they take, is a fundamental human right that should be protected.”1 As a Coloradan of a more libertarian persuasion puts it, “to be licensed by a bunch of bureaucrats for the most private and sacred act of marriage-that’s demeaning. It’s simply none of the government’s business whom I marry.”2 Related takes on this concept include “The Marriage Resolution” put forward by the group appropriately called Freedom to Marry and recently advanced in San Francisco:
At most, in this view, the government’s role is simply to register those couples freely entering civil marriage, so they might qualify for the benefits and public blessing involved.
