The license IS the example of statism. Those who advocate license advocate statism, those who claim no need for a license are on the side of freedom. That is the nature of a license.
Ignoring what a person does could never be statism. Acknowledging what a person does very well might be - and in the case of congress more often is than not. When the state does not acknowledge the choice it permits them to do freely as they want. If it does acknowledge that choice (and requires a license, or a title, or a ceremony in front of an official, or a fee, etc) then that is the statist act.
I can hardly see how you can sat that NOT forcing someone to get a license is statism.
We need to remove the need for a license by all the other people too.
The defintion is what it is. But if gay people want to create their own definition and go in front of any willing pastor, priest, shaman, then who is stopping them?
The interacial marriage thing would be statism because it tells people what they cannot do. does it tell two people of different races that they cannot stand on a beach with their hippy friend and do whatever ceremony they want and call themselves married? Or does it say that they won't be given a license? Because not being given a piece of paper that restricts one is actually freedom.
