Is it in the best interest of the state (representing the voluntary cohesion of a group of people) to recognize "marriage" as a unit that, IN TOTO, represents procreation and a reduction on the burden of the state of rearing future citizens?

For example, the "nuclear family" arguably represents the ideological "best unit" for raising children and economic stability of such, and the breakdown of the traditional marriage and its family-rearing component represents an additional burden on the state? i.e., it is better to have a mom and dad raising (a) kid(s), then to have the state take over that primary responsibility?

Let me say, I categorically discount the "individual example" arguments of infertile couples, older adults that are past their child-bearing years, etc. Those DO NOT represent the IN TOTO argument for the basis of institutional recognition of marriage.

I.e., one can certainly argue that times have changed to the extent that the traditional view of marriage is no longer relevant. But I'd like to see some long-term DATA on that (excluding anecdotal evidence). I'd also like to see some relevant arguments that the govt-at-large accepting the responsibility of child-rearing is better than the tradition biological unit, and I'd especially like to hear from libertarians who otherwise decry the state's involvement.

My argument is that in order to have "gay marriage" or "single motherhood" or whatever, the state has to provide a greater welfare net for the raising of children -- more medicare, more unemployment, more employee benefits, more educational resources, more state-supported social resources, etc. Is this a handing off of individual rights (and responsibilities) to the state nanny gov't -- in the guise of *more* individual rights?

As I said, this is an aspect I don't see widely debated. I haven't made up my mind (although I am leaning con). To me, it is seeming to be an argument that the state can do a better job of raising children/future citizens than the "traditional parent"-recognized unit. I see a real threat for the opportunity of indoctrination in this philosophy. I think the opponents of "gay marriage" are pilloried for intolerance, when, in fact, they are simply inarticulate in espousing this position (and I admit I haven't done a very good job myself). But I am not homophobic, or callous to the argument of homosexuals' desire to be afforded a basic acknowledgement of their individual civil rights (or recognition that theirs isn't a life-style choice).

I'd just like to clarify the debate in the context of the ramifications for state-controlled child rearing. Which I think is a sincere, fundamental -- and legitimate -- issue for "traditional marriage advocates," including those representated by the much-denigrated homeschooling/fundamentalist segment of society (of which I am neither). But I acknowledge that they may have legitimate points -- many of which are otherwise defended by self-proclaimed "libertarians."

---