I am a libertarian believing that people should live their lives freely, not hampered by big State but within the law – and sometimes natural law – which I believe is the union between a man and woman as defined by centuries of tradition. I have no religion and I am not homophobic, I have many gay friends who all tell me that they are happy with civil partnerships and have no need to go further. However, the extreme gay lobby will win the day on this one. As have the bullies in the animal rights and pro-life lobbies.
Presumably she isn’t so silly as to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that it’s against British law, given that would be quite a remarkable feat of question-begging. So it is indeed the “natural law” that should “sometimes” guide policy being invoked here. And this non-religious, non-homophobic “natural law” comes from somewhere and dictates that the social institution of marriage must track this underlying reality where only men and women may formally unite. And that’s a valid constraint on the value of liberty. Keep asserting it, Janice, and maybe it will come true.