My dad had actually sent me 2 things about that today. (I'm rather surprised phin was the only LJer to mention it.) This references an AP account that just mentions that he thinks states should have the right to decide what constitutes marriage. This uses an ABC report which further quotes him as saying "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone."
Reading that last statement i thought wow, that is an incredibly radical statement if taken to its logical conclusions, though i'm sure he doesn't mean it as broadly as some of us might like to interpret it.
One of the commenters on phin's entry linked to this Yahoo article which gives an extended version of the quote: "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage."
I wonder if he's truly thought about the implications of that. I mean, he's basically saying, you can have an incestuous relationship, or a consensual BDSM relationship, or a poly relationship, or whatever, and that the government might not give official sanction/approval like shared health benefits but that it wouldn't be criminalized. I, of course, think as long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be free to do whatever you want.
The first of the pieces i linked to mentions the Cherokee Nation ixnaying same-sex marriage and i was reminded of how so many people glorify indigenous peoples and their societies and insist that the evil West not force its ways onto other cultures, conveniently forgetting anything they do that we don't like.