I thought it was just me.

Actually I knew a carrot farmer from Spokane who absolutely hates the "baby carrot" trend but was forced to but the machine to make them, because his business for regular carrots had plummeted. As he noted, all of the best stuff is in the skin.

Interestingly Kias, marriage thrived worldwide for thousands of years in the absence of state licensed marriage. It wasn't until a couple of generations after the introduction of marriage licensing that marriage failure rates began to grow at a geometric rate. My personal observation has been that terrible government policies that corrode societies, usually take 1-2 generations before their effects are felt.

Furthermore, what was the great need that spurred marriage licensing in the first place? What was the great travesty that needed rectifying? Miscegenation .

Marriage licensing schemes were cooked up from the beginning to interfere with interracial relationships. This was a nux vomica from its conception.

Miss Cellania as much as I'd love to discuss those corollaries at great length, I think they will derail the question at hand, so I will very respectfully remain mute and re-assert my original point.

There is no legitimate or moral right or authority to interfere with another individual's association/dissociation. Full stop.

When someone asks "but what about the effect on X" I picture a reasonable, moderate, moral person in 1830 asking "but what about the entire southern economy? Wouldn't a lot of farmers be hurt?" A lot of very good and decent people asked just this.

Only unreasonable extremists were willing to say that the obvious short term consequences were less important than the greater moral truth, and I realize that I am positing a radical position that may have negative effects on many people.

Of course, now that I say that, it makes me wonder about the changes that we will see to gaming as 2 billion people join the internet over the next ten years... the narrative will surely shift in fascinating ways.