CATO Institute Advocates State Licensure!

Dale Carpenter has a new CATO paper out opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In it he discusses various legal and constitutional issues involving the FMA but he doesn't analyze it from a libertarian perspective. Peculiar for a libertarian writing for a libertarian think tank.

The FMA would seem to prevent states from licensing same sex marriages (SSM). Isn't the prevention or elimination or government licensing generally the libertarian position?

It sounds to me like the FMA is promoting the libertarian position on Dom Rel law. It prevents the states from regulating SSM. SSM's can still be established by the parties. All they have to do is find a church or jump a broomstick.

Now all libertarians have to do is find out a way to prevent state regulation of OSM and the rest of us can be freed from state oppression.

Return Dom Rel law to private institutions like the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Coven, etc.

Here's an "inside baseball" question to Dale and other libertarians who support state licensure of SSM:

Suppose that I'm a massage therapist in a state that does not license massage therapy. I organize a group of my fellows to petition the state to license massage therapists. We are seeking to increase the professionalism of massage therapy and restrict entry so that we can increase our incomes (in other words gain all the benefits that the other licensed professions have.

So what would be the libertarian position on this proposal? Do libertarians generally support or oppose the extension of licensure to new professions? Or do they favor ending the licensure of existing licensed professions? Isn't the answer obvious?

How is the licensing of private sexual unions different from the licensing of professions (save that such licensure would seem to be much more invasive of personal life)?

I know. Without state licensure of sexual congress you can't receive the 1001 benefits.

What became of the lost libertarianism of my youth...?