Gay Marriage? What's Government got to do with it?

We must all remember, that tolerance does not mean that we agree with or endorse a given behavior.  In fact, that we disagree with a behavior does not even mean that said behavior is wrong, it simply means we disagree with it.  If you want real freedom, you must, by definition, tolerate the views and behaviors of others - most especially when you don't agree with them.  Toleration does not however mean that others can impose their views on you, nor can they interfere with your freedoms in any way, in the exercise of their freedom.

With this in mind, let's re-evaluate the role of government on marriage.  Marriage is one of the most sacred institutions, most honored traditions that people of all cultures celebrate.  Why is it that we have allowed government to become involved in this so intimate of proceedings?  Why do we think we can trust Government to act as the benevolent dictator in this situation?  Shouldn't marriage be performed by religious organizations?  Shouldn't marriage be controlled by "We the People" and not the Government?  Why don't we take back the power of marriage, lest we lose control of it entirely?  


The legal benefits of marriage should also be conveyed by simple contracts, executed by the people entering into the agreements.  This removes government from the process and empowers the people.

****** UPDATE :  6/15/2011 ******

Ann Coulter recently opined that "Libertarians are cowards" for saying basically what I have stated above.  She claims that we've left important questions unanswered, such as, who can adopt, etc.  I thought it important to answer her attack - with logic of course.

Regardless of your opinion of gays, right or wrong, natural or unnatural, logic will prevail.

1. People are born gay, they are not taught to be gay.  If gays can only "mess up kids" by raising their kids to be gay, simply by being gay themselves, how do you get a gay in the first place, since presumably traditional families are not gay.
   
   
2. Given the vast numbers of unwanted children, children bouncing around in the foster care system, or living in abusive homes, what could possibly be worse than where they're at?  Isn't it more important that these children be placed in a loving, permanent home?  Does it really matter that the home is not what traditionalists would consider "ideal"?  Isn't what really matters is that it's a great improvement over where the kids were before?

Libertarians are most definitely not cowards, we did not ignore the issue of adoption, we just see it very differently than Ann Coulter.  We don't think Government can do anything better than the individual, most especially child care.