A reoccurring theme at reason.com is gay marriage. They continually post articles about gay marriage and imply in many news links that they think it should be adopted by all states. Reason.com, however, is known as being a libertarian, near anarchist in their views. When they advocate for homosexual marriage, they are arguing the government create more arbitrary legal statuses, not less. A real libertarian would argue that government should divest itself from the activity of licensing marriages, not create additional legal statuses.

In a libertarian society, people could solve their problems through contracts. This could and would solve custody disputes, inheritances, divorces, and all other problems. But Reason does not advocate this, and in one of their most recent articles, they explain why: it is impractical and legal precedence is again it:

[I]t may just be more difficult to privatize marriage in any common law jurisdiction. At common law, the law of marriage and the family is part of public law — and always has been — even when in the hands of the Church. This is why there was no ‘common law marriage’ in England. In civilian countries, by contrast, family law is private law, and thus much more amenable to manipulation via private law mechanisms. That is why there was ‘marriage by habit and repute’ in Scotland.

What! Since when has legal precedence or civil tradition been a reason that Reason opposes deregulation? Of course they don’t apply their own logic to drugs, prostitution, adultery, socialized medicine, or social welfare nets. No, this only applies when they see the state as a vehicle to champion their pet ideology: that homosexual relations should be normalized to people who do not share their value set. Reason.com shows itself to be just another advocacy group, using the strong arm of the state to push their private beliefs.