Rand Paul TIME op-ed: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business

[jct74]

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business

Sen. Rand Paul
June 28, 2015

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives

While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, DC.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, such as contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

...

read more:
http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/



615360590966468608

[Brett85]

Great article by Rand. As Warlord said I should've been more patient. My apologies for completely jumping the gun on this. I'll try to not do that again.

[Kotin]

good stuff and I am seeing positive responses on this one around the net..

[timosman]

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose.

Was not there a way to phrase it better ? :confused:

[Crashland]

Bravo Rand. The way I see it, this is just about the only response that could have been any good. I think he could have come out strongly for this way before the SCOTUS decision happened, but now is as good a time as any, I suppose. Social conservatives have pretty much no recourse now other than to try to get government out of what it should never have been involved with in the first place.

[Jan2017]

Perfect.

[Crashland]

Was not there a way to phrase it better ? :confused:

Obvious pander to the religious right is obvious. I just read it and smile

[francisco]

Now there is an article full of common sense and libertarian Win.

I am really impressed! Rand firing on all cylinders.

[Sola_Fide]

Better than I expected.

[Jan2017]

Now there is an article full of common sense and libertarian Win.

I am really impressed! Rand firing on all cylinders.

Agree. It's the opposite of Huckabee.

[Crashland]

Great article by Rand. As Warlord said I should've been more patient. My apologies for completely jumping the gun on this. I'll try to not do that again.

Actually I thought the discussion which came about was quite fruitful.

[Jan2017]

Going viral with this "issue" ? How would it "look" ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbeqj-1XOo

[supermario21]

I think it captures an accurate sense of most of the American public, especially when people really think about it. Of course, gay couples should have the same rights when it comes to government recognition/benefits. It's also a shot across the bow at the social conservative establishment that seeks to force its will upon the government. It really strikes a balance between the two sides that is fair, and something I can get behind.

[Created4]

Obvious pander to the religious right is obvious. I just read it and smile

Or maybe that is what he actually believes. Here is the full quote:


The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

[timosman]

Obvious pander to the religious right is obvious. I just read it and smile

Why can't he stay within confines of reality instead of making shit up ?

[Crashland]

The only thing that bothers me about this is that it opens up an attack, something like "Conservatives think if they can't have marriage their way, then no one should be allowed to have it at all." Which is kind of true, since if this whole getting gov't out of marriage thing catches on, it had to take such a drastic SCOTUS decision to spark it. But getting the government out of marriage has been the libertarian position all along, and I hope Rand can somehow take credit for that instead of being grouped in with all the other conservatives who might just now be jumping on board.

[Jan2017]

I think it captures an accurate sense of most of the American public, especially when people really think about it. Of course, gay couples should have the same rights when it comes to government recognition/benefits. It's also a shot across the bow at the social conservative establishment that seeks to force its will upon the government. It really strikes a balance between the two sides that is fair, and something I can get behind.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbeqj-1XOo

[Sola_Fide]

The only thing that bothers me about this is that it opens up an attack, something like "Conservatives think if they can't have marriage their way, then no one should be allowed to have it at all." Which is kind of true, since if this whole getting gov't out of marriage thing catches on, it had to take such a drastic SCOTUS decision to spark it. But getting the government out of marriage has been the libertarian position all along, and I hope Rand can somehow take credit for that instead of being grouped in with all the other conservatives who might just now be jumping on board.

If government doesn't license marriage, there won't be marriage? That sounds like those Communists countries who wondered where shoes would come from if the government ever stopped making them.

[Brett85]

Of course, gay couples should have the same rights when it comes to government recognition/benefits.

The "same rights" meaning that the government shouldn't recognize any marriages. He doesn't take the liberal view that the government should recognize same sex marriages and change the definition of marriage.

[Crashland]

If government doesn't license marriage, there won't be marriage? That sounds like those Communists countries who wondered where shoes would come from if the government ever stopped making them.

Not necessarily that, but the benefits that come with marriage,...etc. As in, "if we have to share the benefits with gay couples then we'd rather have no one get benefits at all" -- that kind of thing.

[Brett85]

If government doesn't license marriage, there won't be marriage? That sounds like those Communists countries who wondered where shoes would come from if the government ever stopped making them.

Right. And as I'm sure you know, marriage existed all throughout the Bible without the government recognizing it or defining it.

[Vanguard101]

GOAT

[Brett85]

Why can't he stay within confines of reality instead of making shit up ?

So people aren't even allowed to be religious in your view. Lol. That's some tolerance for you.

[Created4]

Great article by Rand. As Warlord said I should've been more patient. My apologies for completely jumping the gun on this. I'll try to not do that again.

Yes, that was pretty annoying. Someone mentioned that he was probably actually reading the decision. In the end, he found common ground with Thomas in dissent, and quoted him extensively. So while the others just spouted out cliches, he basically wrote something more akin to a college essay analyzing everything. You don't just do that overnight.

[Brett85]

Yes, that was pretty annoying. Someone mentioned that he was probably actually reading the decision. In the end, he found common ground with Thomas in dissent, and quoted him extensively. So while the others just spouted out cliches, he basically wrote something more akin to a college essay analyzing everything. You don't just do that overnight.

Yes, you're right. I know I look quite foolish now. Again I apologize and will try to do better.

[Crashland]

Or maybe that is what he actually believes. Here is the full quote:

It might be what he believes, who knows. I don't really trust anything any politician says about their religious views, including Rand. Anyway, he's talking about human rights, which anybody from any religion (or non-religion) can relate with - but he goes the extra step to explain that those rights "come from God", and that it was written that way into the constitution declaration of independence because God wanted to make America special and he raised up wise men to be the founders. It's not something that NEEDs to be said, but he makes sure to include it because there are a lot of voters who like that kind of thing. Again, whether that's something he really believes I'm not going to speculate.

[Vanguard101]

Great article by Rand. As Warlord said I should've been more patient. My apologies for completely jumping the gun on this. I'll try to not do that again.

Good to admit when ur wrong

[Sola_Fide]

Not necessarily that, but the benefits that come with marriage,...etc. As in, "if we have to share the benefits with gay couples then we'd rather have no one get benefits at all" -- that kind of thing.

I don't think the government benefits marriage. That's the argument Rand just made. It's a good one.

[Jan2017]

Ohio does not let go of this issue . . . Rand wins over Hillary . . . sorry Dimocrats


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAYGz6Iwmc

[timosman]

So people aren't even allowed to be religious in your view. Lol. That's some tolerance for you.

Whoa, when did I say that ? I don't mind people being religious, just do not flaunt it in my face. And out of all religions and gods which one is he referring to ? Am I supposed to know that ?

[65fastback2+2]

Was not there a way to phrase it better ? :confused:

Even with evil leaders, like obama and clinton, Christians believe all government heads are put in place or allowed to be put in place by God.

His comment didnt say they were God believers, just that God raised them up.

If you're a Christian, his comment makes sense, if you arent then its worded that it shouldnt get your panties in too much of a wad.

[Sola_Fide]

Even with evil leaders, like obama and clinton, Christians believe all government heads are put in place or allowed to be put in place by God.

His comment didnt say they were God believers, just that God raised them up.

If you're a Christian, his comment makes sense, if you arent then its worded that it shouldnt get your panties in too much of a wad.

Actually, Christians believe that evil leaders are appointed by God to judge the people for their sins against Him.

[timosman]

Even with evil leaders, like obama and clinton, Christians believe all government heads are put in place or allowed to be put in place by God.

His comment didnt say they were God believers, just that God raised them up.

If you're a Christian, his comment makes sense, if you arent then its worded that it shouldnt get your panties in too much of a wad.

I guess it makes sense it does not make sense for a former Christian. I must have become overly sensitive. :D

[65fastback2+2]

Actually, Christians believe that evil leaders are appointed by God to judge the people for their sins against Him.

That is irrelevant to my comment...I was only commenting on being put in power...not why.

[RonPaulMall]

It might be what he believes, who knows. I don't really trust anything any politician says about their religious views, including Rand. Anyway, he's talking about human rights, which anybody from any religion (or non-religion) can relate with - but he goes the extra step to explain that those rights "come from God", and that it was written that way into the constitution declaration of independence because God wanted to make America special and he raised up wise men to be the founders. It's not something that NEEDs to be said, but he makes sure to include it because there are a lot of voters who like that kind of thing. Again, whether that's something he really believes I'm not going to speculate.

Agreed. Saying that we have "natural rights" granted either from God or by nature of our humanity and which and no politician or government has the right to interfere with is pretty standard libertarian/conservative belief. Saying that God raised the Founding Fathers for the express purpose of writing the US Constitution is not something you hear every day. Kind of bizarre in fact. But I guess he figured lest the rest of the article fly over everyone's head, he better throw some batshyt crazy religious statement in at the end that leaves no doubt which side of the debate he falls down on.

[65fastback2+2]

I guess it makes sense it does not make sense for a former Christian. I must have become overly sensitive. :D

The sentence structure is such that if you dont believe in God, it still says the founders were wise men.

[euphemia]

Obvious pander to the religious right is obvious. I just read it and smile

Rand's a Christian. Some people actually say what they believe and it's not pandering.

[Sola_Fide]

Agreed. Saying that we have "natural rights" granted either from God or by nature of our humanity and which and no politician or government has the right to interfere with is pretty standard libertarian/conservative belief. Saying that God raised the Founding Fathers for the express purpose of writing the US Constitution is not something you hear every day. Kind of bizarre in fact. But I guess he figured lest the rest of the article fly over everyone's head, he better throw some batshyt crazy religious statement in at the end that leaves no doubt which side of the debate he falls down on.

It wasn’t bizarre at all. If you want to read some really bizarre crazy religious stuff, read some of the writings of the founding generation who actually created the greatest experiment in liberty.

[Danke]

It might be what he believes, who knows. I don't really trust anything any politician says about their religious views, including Rand. Anyway, he's talking about human rights, which anybody from any religion (or non-religion) can relate with - but he goes the extra step to explain that those rights "come from God", and that it was written that way into the constitution declaration of independence because God wanted to make America special and he raised up wise men to be the founders. It's not something that NEEDs to be said, but he makes sure to include it because there are a lot of voters who like that kind of thing. Again, whether that's something he really believes I'm not going to speculate.


Microaggression

[Aratus]

I do like the way Senator Rand Paul has phrased his intelligent and well thought out response.
I am mindful in other cultures among consenting adults polygamy and polyandry are thought
to be more normal and acceptable than they are legally here, in our great society. I feel the
SCOTUS decision, by not waiting for more states to arrive at a given epiphany, has placed on
the federal level something that belongs at the state or local level, and if we ask about basic
bonds & the human heart, the door has been opened to things quite common in other cultures
that are not the mores we were raised with. The 14th Amendment has indeed been extended in a
broad, inclusive & sweeping manner in the 20th Century from its inception during Reconstruction.
The way the Supreme Court has framed the question is in terms of mores, and changing attitudes.

[Aratus]

I would be quite shocked if Rick Santorum now agrees with Senator Rand Paul on this issue...
I don't expect the debate on this to go away quickly. I am mindful that during FDR's presidency,
we saw the 18th Amendment repealed as we all ceased to place at the federal level something
that was then handed over in various cities and towns to the local level. Uncle Sam pulled in taxes
from the sale of alcohol as some communities chose to be "wet" and not 100% dry. Back in the good
old bad old days, the time~frame for divorces was much shorter in Las Vegas, our marriage and
divorce laws were never totally uniform. If we may allow a degree of discretion whereby the places
that same~sex marriages are to be preformed at are no more than 30 miles apart, perhaps we
can designate more places where these marriages can transpire. This is how we handled "wet" and
"dry" after people like William Jennings Bryan went on a moral crusade against alcohol and its tragic
abuses. I do not expect a total reversal of this decision but I am now hoping that wisdom guides its
extension. http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/ Here it is again in its full glory!

[specsaregood]

Saying that God raised the Founding Fathers for the express purpose of writing the US Constitution is not something you hear every day. Kind of bizarre in fact.

It doesn't seem too bizarre to me or even that far from his fathers statement that the constitution was "divinely inspired".

[wizardwatson]

I've been criticized for coming down too hard on Rand. Personally, I don't think one can come down too hard on anyone regarding the truth as long as they are ready to accept the same treatment.

Rand's response was in line with what I predicted in this post here on Friday (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477348-SCOTUS-legalizes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated&p=5906106&viewfull=1#post5906106). Heavy on the "state's rights" light on the "it's the nucleus of civilization" stuff that he's posted/said elsewhere.

But he is running for office, yeeeeeees, I get that.

But this was a good thorough response. He did nail the key issues.

And I would like to commend him for mentioning more than once the KEY, KEY issue. The Federal government REDEFINED MARRIAGE. SCOTUS unilaterally changed the definition of every state that didn't want them too including the state of Kansas where I live and where we altered our Constitution to state our definition of marriage which was the ancient biblical one.

So count this as my effort to "support" Rand (today :). I'm kind of a cantankerous individual when it comes to, as Chris Rock would say, "giving credit to people for shit their supposed to do" like politicians, but I'll give it to Rand here since he hit all the key issues and it is the kind of response I would expect from an elected official charged with defending our Constitution. As someone who openly admits struggling with their faith he even managed to slip God into the discussion. So again, on that angle, though of course I'm open to more of that, I think he did what he could on that front.

I too was tempted to post and get on him for not responding in less than a day (many here apparently couldn't wait) like he did with Obamacare, but I do think in this case it was because it meant more to him than Obamacare and not less, and therefore he wanted all his ducks in a row.

[chronicaust]

Great response by Rand, should get some good media coverage =)

Here's to hoping!

[phill4paul]

Marriage by government is...."inescapably a symbol of human bondage and slavery."

[Galileo Galilei]

This column is a blockbuster. A game-changer. The establishment will not be happy.

[jkob]

This isn't the issue you guys want to stick your flag down for, gay marriage is now protected by the 14th amendment and unlikely to ever change. Public opinion has shifted to the point that even a good portion of Republicans support it, younger people and business leaders. The cat is out of the bag and there is no point resisting it at this point, it is right that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all but it is and there is no way you can deny same-sex couples the same rights as traditional ones. Whether or not its okay to discriminate against homosexuals and the question of government recognition of marriage are two entirely separate issues. The religious definition of marriage and the government definition need not meet, Christians should use this as a opportunity to find the faith that so many have lost in all but meaningless words and gestures.

Rand isn't going to win with a base of butthurt Evangelicals, they're going to back one of the other 10+ candidates that pander to their views and if Rand were smart he'd position himself as the rational moderate alternative while the rest of the field fall over themselves thumping their bibles because that isn't what the majority of this country wants. Rand is not going to win by trying to appeal to lowest common denominator.

[Brett85]

This isn't the issue you guys want to stick your flag down for, gay marriage is now protected by the 14th amendment and unlikely to ever change. Public opinion has shifted to the point that even a good portion of Republicans support it, younger people and business leaders. The cat is out of the bag and there is no point resisting it at this point, it is right that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all but it is and there is no way you can deny same-sex couples the same rights as traditional ones. The religious definition of marriage and the government definition need not meet, Christians should use this as a opportunity to find the faith that so many have lost in all but meaningless words and gestures.

Rand isn't going to win with a base of butthurt Evangelicals, they're going to back one of the other 10+ candidates that pander to their views and if Rand were smart he'd position himself as the rational moderate alternative while the rest of the field fall over themselves thumping their bibles because that isn't what the majority of this country wants. Rand is not going to win by trying to appeal to lowest common denominator.

As has been pointed out numerous times, this issue isn't going to die because the gay rights movement is forcing their views on Christians, trying to sue and imprison people who disagree with their stance. The battle is only just beginning on this issue, and I'm very glad that Rand said in this article that he's in for the fight for the long haul.

[timosman]

Rand is not going to win by trying to appeal to lowest common denominator.

Amen.

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand's op-ed is the guide for getting the social right onboard with fighting for their agenda on a non-authoritarian basis. Central (especially federal) government encroachment on private or local matters is the problem. Cultural conservatives have missed this by trying to lock state force in their direction, and hitching their wagon for decades to a GOP leadership that, as is now plainly obvious, was never trying to deliver for them on these issues. At this point, they should realize that the social left authoritarians are much better at getting state force to go their way, and the "waiting for the Supremes" or new judicial appointments to save the day game has run its course.

With the SCOTUS path seemingly blocked off to them now on both abortion and homosexuality, they now need to embrace the libertarian path of stripping the federal government of jurisdiction on these issues, and dumping the pols, Republican or Democrat, who won't stay in line. They also need to back away from the rigid partisan thinking that isolates the Christian right in the GOP from those in the Democratic party (in other words, bring back the landslides of the Reagan years, where the less-government candidate united the social conservatives of both parties behind him).

That faction in the Democratic party still exists, as demonstrated as recently as a few years ago in CA, where most black voters rejected gay marriage by referendum and caused its defeat. This cross-party re-unification of the cultural right is one of the things the elite fear the most, which is why they so quickly moved to co-opt the Tea Party within the GOP, and why they have boxed or blacked out any candidate who could have revived the Reagan coalition, from Buchanan to Ron Paul. If Rand leads them along the new strategy of de-federalizing the issues, the more thoughtful of them may realize they have no other place to go than the liberty route to make progress going forward.

[Aratus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Brett85]

Rand's op-ed is the guide for getting the social right onboard with fighting for their agenda on a non-authoritarian basis. Central (especially federal) government encroachment on private or local matters is the problem. Cultural conservatives have missed this by trying to lock state force in their direction, and hitching their wagon for decades to a GOP leadership that, as is now plainly obvious, was never trying to deliver for them on these issues.

With the SCOTUS path seemingly blocked off to them now on both abortion and homosexuality, they now need to embrace the libertarian path of stripping the federal government of jurisdiction on these issues, and dumping the pols, Republican or Democrat, who won't stay in line. They also need to back away from the rigid partisan thinking that isolates the Christian right in the GOP from those in the Democratic party (in other words, bring back the landslides of the Reagan years, where the less-government candidate united the social conservatives of both parties behind him.

That faction in the Democratic party still exists, as demonstrated as recently as a few years ago in CA, where most black voters rejected the gay marriage referendum and caused its defeat. This cross-party re-unification of the cultural right is one of the things the elite fear the most, which is why they so quickly moved to co-opt the Tea Party within the GOP, and why they have boxed or blacked out any candidate who could have revived the Reagan coalition, from Buchanan to Ron Paul. If Rand leads them along the new strategy of de-federalizing the issues, the more thoughtful of them may realize they have no other place to go than the liberty route to make progress going forward.

Agree completely. The only way that we're going to be able to restore our culture is from the bottom up. The top down strategy that's been advocated and implemented by the Republican Party has completely failed.

[Aratus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[alucard13mm]

Good response.

Usa is great because every state is different.

[jct74]

Rand's op-ed skyrocketed to the #1 post at r/conservative in barely over an hour, seems to be pretty popular over there.

[TaftFan]

Rand's op-ed skyrocketed to the #1 post at r/conservative in barely over an hour, seems to be pretty popular over there.

And also number one in r/Libertarian

[jct74]

And also number one in r/Libertarian

Yeah, that's right. Three of the top four in r/libertarian are Rand posts actually.

And Friday night Rand occupied the top spot of both r/libertarian and r/marijuana with the article about his #1 rating from Marijuana Policy Project.

[Jackie Moon]

Seems to be getting a pretty positive response...

615368884950970368

The image and post:

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10153161560311107:0

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11168482_10153161560311107_872692187943878101_n.jp g?oh=29bfb8d39e9b238d8bb439350d1e1cd3&oe=562472FB

[jct74]

615360590966468608
615357239902146560
615313044411912193

[cat_woman]

He gave an excellent response. Contrast Rand to people like Scott Walker who are calling for an amendment to the Constitution. As if that would ever happen. But Walker and others continue with their ridiculous pandering.

[cat_woman]

Double post error.

[timosman]

Seems to be getting a pretty positive response...

615368884950970368

The image and post:

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10153161560311107:0

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11168482_10153161560311107_872692187943878101_n.jp g?oh=29bfb8d39e9b238d8bb439350d1e1cd3&oe=562472FB

Now we are talking :)

[Sola_Fide]

615360590966468608
615357239902146560
615313044411912193

Those are great. I'm really pleased by those quotes.

[Galileo Galilei]

He gave an excellent response. Contrast Rand to people like Scott Walker who are calling for an amendment to the Constitution. As if that would ever happen. But Walker and others continue with their ridiculous pandering.

Let's see if Walker could even get the constitutional amendment through the Wisconsin Assembly, which has 63 republicans and only 36 democrats.

LOL Walker.

[LawnWake]

He did what I hoped he was going to do and he said what I've been saying. Couldn't be happier.

[Sola_Fide]

Why isn't this on the front page?

[William Tell]

The federal government should not be in the marriage business. I do disagree with this part though from my understanding of history:




The constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, DC.

I'm pretty sure most of them went to their local preacher.

[randomname]

great Drudge headline: "Rand comes out swinging on gay marriage"

[Sola_Fide]

The federal government should not be in the marriage business. I do disagree with this part though from my understanding of history:



I'm pretty sure most of them went to their local preacher.


Agree. They wrote their name in the front of the family Bible and that's about all the license that existed.

[squirl22]

Thanks, Rand.

[Sola_Fide]

Notice how different (and better) Rand's statement was than Amash's. Amash said:


To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.

But Rand never gave in to premise at all:


Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.



Amash says:


But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.


Rand says:


The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?

[GunnyFreedom]

Why can't he stay within confines of reality instead of making shit up ?

Sounds like he's describing reality perfectly to me.

[GunnyFreedom]

If government doesn't license marriage, there won't be marriage? That sounds like those Communists countries who wondered where shoes would come from if the government ever stopped making them.

Had some guy I'm not friends with come on my Facebook whining about how Rand wanted to discriminate against him, and when I finall broke through his thick skull about banning licensure he went straight to 'abolishing marriage' altogether.

Then he started whining about 'who will pave the roads' and privatized prisons. :rolleyes:

[CaptUSA]

+ rep to Rand's staff!

They have consistently been able to craft the right tone on these matters.

Thought-provoking, yet incontrovertible.
Libertarian-friendly, yet palatable for mass-consumption.
Eye-opening, yet inclusive.

Kudos.

[smokemonsc]

Rand's op-ed is the guide for getting the social right onboard with fighting for their agenda on a non-authoritarian basis. Central (especially federal) government encroachment on private or local matters is the problem. Cultural conservatives have missed this by trying to lock state force in their direction, and hitching their wagon for decades to a GOP leadership that, as is now plainly obvious, was never trying to deliver for them on these issues. At this point, they should realize that the social left authoritarians are much better at getting state force to go their way, and the "waiting for the Supremes" or new judicial appointments to save the day game has run its course.

With the SCOTUS path seemingly blocked off to them now on both abortion and homosexuality, they now need to embrace the libertarian path of stripping the federal government of jurisdiction on these issues, and dumping the pols, Republican or Democrat, who won't stay in line. They also need to back away from the rigid partisan thinking that isolates the Christian right in the GOP from those in the Democratic party (in other words, bring back the landslides of the Reagan years, where the less-government candidate united the social conservatives of both parties behind him.

That faction in the Democratic party still exists, as demonstrated as recently as a few years ago in CA, where most black voters rejected the gay marriage referendum and caused its defeat. This cross-party re-unification of the cultural right is one of the things the elite fear the most, which is why they so quickly moved to co-opt the Tea Party within the GOP, and why they have boxed or blacked out any candidate who could have revived the Reagan coalition, from Buchanan to Ron Paul. If Rand leads them along the new strategy of de-federalizing the issues, the more thoughtful of them may realize they have no other place to go than the liberty route to make progress going forward.

Yup!

[Tinnuhana]

At one time, wasn't licensure put on the law books to prevent interracial marriages? If so, that might be a good "angle" to use to support getting marriage out of government control.

[Sola_Fide]

At one time, wasn't licensure put on the law books to prevent interracial marriages? If so, that might be a good "angle" to use to support getting marriage out of government control.

Unfortunately, there are instances of licensure that predates that.

[Ronin Truth]

Government Should Get Out of the government business. They're all just pretty crappy at it.

[asurfaholic]

Government Should Get Out of the government business. They're all just pretty crappy at it.

https://fedgeno.com/meme-generator/memes/867.png

[Ronin Truth]

https://fedgeno.com/meme-generator/memes/867.png

Same as now, the roadbuilders. ;) :D

[Krugminator2]

Truthfully, my reaction after reading this op-ed is that his answer is the single most well reasoned and articulate answer that I have ever heard on marriage. It is good to see that everyone else seemed to think it was a great answer too.

I will be curious to see what kind of pushback he gets on it.

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

He's not wrong, marriage should be done by voluntary means even if you personally disagree with LGBTs marrying (such as myself, and I'm non-theistic).

[timosman]

He's not wrong, marriage should be done by voluntary means even if you personally disagree with LGBTs marrying (such as myself, and I'm non-theistic).

Not everything marriage related is voluntary, e.g. alimony, but it could be handled by birth or adoption certificate.

[Brett85]

Rand is trending number one on Facebook right now.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

it could be handled by birth or adoption certificate.

Those are both government documents, of course. If the state issued one of those documents to a child, and the document stated she had two fathers, is that fair to the child? Does she not have a right to know who her real biological natural mother is? Does the state have the right to deny reality and say she has no mother and never did? Does she not have a right to find another adoptive mother who would have her?

[65fastback2+2]

Unfortunately, there are instances of licensure that predates that.

While there are, everyone of them are wrong and should be considered.

1) Pre-America, the church of England used marriage licenses as a source of revenue.
2) 1741, North Carolina instituted marriage licenses to prohibit interracial marriage. By the 1920's, 38 states had anti-interracial marriage laws and they were legal till 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

[givemeliberty2010]

Maybe I don't completely understand Rand's op-ed. Marriage was already a private contract. The only difference was that the government licensed that private contract. I don't think Rand will make any of the conservatives happy by by allowing gay marriage as long as it is not performed or licensed by government agents.

[DisneyFan]

I don't agree with the libertarian position on marriage, but this is a good op-ed. Surprised TIME published it. To be honest though, the current political environment makes this solution impossible, so it's little more than red meat for his base. Not that it's a bad thing given some of his mistakes in recent weeks.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't agree with the libertarian position on marriage, but this is a good op-ed. Surprised TIME published it. To be honest though, the current political environment makes this solution impossible, so it's little more than red meat for his base. Not that it's a bad thing given some of his mistakes in recent weeks.

Why don't you agree?

[givemeliberty2010]

Someone was bashing Rand's op-ed a few hours ago, and I was about to defend it. But then I thought about the opinion and could not figure out how to defend it. IF marriage is a contract, ad he acknowledges, then government cannot get out of the way as long as it is involved with enforcing contracts.

[DisneyFan]

This isn't the issue you guys want to stick your flag down for, gay marriage is now protected by the 14th amendment and unlikely to ever change. Public opinion has shifted to the point that even a good portion of Republicans support it, younger people and business leaders. The cat is out of the bag and there is no point resisting it at this point, it is right that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all but it is and there is no way you can deny same-sex couples the same rights as traditional ones. Whether or not its okay to discriminate against homosexuals and the question of government recognition of marriage are two entirely separate issues. The religious definition of marriage and the government definition need not meet, Christians should use this as a opportunity to find the faith that so many have lost in all but meaningless words and gestures.

Rand isn't going to win with a base of butthurt Evangelicals, they're going to back one of the other 10+ candidates that pander to their views and if Rand were smart he'd position himself as the rational moderate alternative while the rest of the field fall over themselves thumping their bibles because that isn't what the majority of this country wants. Rand is not going to win by trying to appeal to lowest common denominator.

Rand cannot win the nomination without a good chunk of the social conservative vote. It's impossible. The libertarian wing is not big enough.

Moderate Republicans do not like Rand because of his views on foreign policy, the NSA, the TPA and TPP, and so on. They will support Jeb, Rubio, or Walker. No amount of positive talk about gays is going to swing that group to Rand. He has been rejected by the establishment and that is that.

The only solution is for Rand to both criticize the Supreme Court ruling and to present his own position on marriage. That gets both the social conservatives and the libertarians listening. Thankfully, that's exactly what he's doing. Finally he's making a smart move.

[Brett85]

Someone was bashing Rand's op-ed a few hours ago, and I was about to defend it. But then I thought about the opinion and could not figure out how to defend it. IF marriage is a contract, ad he acknowledges, then government cannot get out of the way as long as it is involved with enforcing contracts.

My view is basically that the word "marriage" simply shouldn't be used at all. There should just be civil unions between adults that are recognized by the government, and then churches can define the word "marriage."

[KingNothing]

Actual Slate headline: "Rand Paul Would Rather End Marriage Than Share It With Gay People"

:rolleyes:

Progressives are very, very stupid.

[Aratus]

Texas is next??? Lets appreciate how far we've come
in getting DOCTOR RAND PAUL to where he is today!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?244947-quot-Toady-is-the-primary!-quot

[Brett85]

Actual Slate headline: "Rand Paul Would Rather End Marriage Than Share It With Gay People"

:rolleyes:

Progressives are very, very stupid.

And all of the liberal websites are claiming that this shows that Rand isn't a "real libertarian." :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

And all of the liberal websites are claiming that this shows that Rand isn't a "real libertarian." :rolleyes:

Haha...of course. This is partly because of people in the "liberty movement" that make it a front for collectivist homosexuality. That is opposite of what libertarianism is, but there are many people on this very website that feed right in to that. They don't have a worldview of freedom.

[rich34]

It might be what he believes, who knows. I don't really trust anything any politician says about their religious views, including Rand. Anyway, he's talking about human rights, which anybody from any religion (or non-religion) can relate with - but he goes the extra step to explain that those rights "come from God", and that it was written that way into the constitution declaration of independence because God wanted to make America special and he raised up wise men to be the founders. It's not something that NEEDs to be said, but he makes sure to include it because there are a lot of voters who like that kind of thing. Again, whether that's something he really believes I'm not going to speculate.

Ron always said that rights come from our creator/God, there's nothing wrong with that. If they dont come from Him then who?

[givemeliberty2010]

My view is basically that the word "marriage" simply shouldn't be used at all. There should just be civil unions between adults that are recognized by the government, and then churches can define the word "marriage."Does this issue all come down to nothing more than a word? The plebiscites that prohibited civil unions would argue otherwise. I think the distinction that is being made here between private contracts and licences goes against what most of the social conservatives think is right.

[Feeding the Abscess]

One issue that should be debated when it comes to marriage licensure and State involvement is the following:

If you accept that government has the authority to regulate and enforce contracts, then making the case that marriage should be nothing but a contract between consenting adults and that government also shouldn't have a say in the matter makes for a tougher sell for those who will pick up on that.

Granted, not very many people will be able to put those two ideas together, but you may run into that objection. Internalize it, think it over, and go from there. If you are an anarchist, it should be an easier sell.

[jj-]

Someone was bashing Rand's op-ed a few hours ago, and I was about to defend it. But then I thought about the opinion and could not figure out how to defend it. IF marriage is a contract, ad he acknowledges, then government cannot get out of the way as long as it is involved with enforcing contracts.

What Rand is proposing is that the government doesn't get to say which contracts are called marriage.

They should have ample authority to make contracts. If you want a contract and want to call it marriage, fine, it's your choice, not the government's. If you want to have a purely religious marriage without any government contracts, fine, it's your choice, not the government's.

There is no contradiction.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What Rand is proposing is that the government doesn't get to say which contracts are called marriage.

They should have ample authority to make contracts. If you want a contract and want to call it marriage, fine, it's your choice, not the government's. If you want to have a purely religious marriage without any government contracts, fine, it's your choice, not the government's.

There is no contradiction.

That's probably the best argument against that objection, in my estimation.

[RabbitMan]

Haha...of course. This is partly because of people in the "liberty movement" that make it a front for collectivist homosexuality. That is opposite of what libertarianism is, but there are many people on this very website that feed right in to that. They don't have a worldview of freedom.

Derp, you are better than the rest of us derp derp. #libertyhipsterderp

If the gov't is going to require that people be married in order to receive all kinds of simple benefits like visitation rights, etc. then LGBT should have equal rights under the law. Don't you even bother trying to argue that the previous way of doing things was better than this.

In an ideal world, we would have the contract system like you mentioned--but this is actually one step closer to that as it begins to divorce the idea of a specific male-female marriage from any other coupling of two individuals via a contract. Baby steps.

But please stop it with this hipster crap. Having a worldview of 'freedom' is not divorced from feeling great joy that our friends or family may receive equal rights under federal law, not to mention some freaking dignity.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Rand is trending number one on Facebook right now.
The trends on Facebook are based on what you like on it and what you normaly talk about.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

There were marriage licenses (and optional courthouse marriages) in Virginia since the 1600s. It was mostly families with property that got them.

Poorer families would usually announce their engagement at church services or other public meetings over the course of a few weeks to give the community a chance to object. The ministers' records of marriage were turned over to the government once a year.


Agree. They wrote their name in the front of the family Bible and that's about all the license that existed.

[Danke]

Derp, you are better than the rest of us derp derp. #libertyhipsterderp

If the gov't is going to require that people be married in order to receive all kinds of simple benefits like visitation rights, etc. then LGBT should have equal rights under the law. Don't you even bother trying to argue that the previous way of doing things was better than this.

In an ideal world, we would have the contract system like you mentioned--but this is actually one step closer to that as it begins to divorce the idea of a specific male-female marriage from any other coupling of two individuals via a contract. Baby steps.

But please stop it with this hipster crap. Having a worldview of 'freedom' is not divorced from feeling great joy that our friends or family may receive equal rights under federal law, not to mention some freaking dignity.

As it has been explain (by lawyers here no less). That they already had those rights. This licensure is all about receiving more monetary benefits from the state that unmarried persons don't enjoy.

[P3ter_Griffin]

As it has been explain (by lawyers here no less). That they already had those rights. This licensure is all about receiving more monetary benefits from the state that unmarried persons don't enjoy.

I have not seen it explained, but maybe I have missed it. I don't doubt that they do have those rights, but the governments laws and it's threats and ability to use force have made exercising them costly. I and many others have used the word 'benefit' during the course of this discussion, but I think it is important to point out that this license provides a relaxation of force, just as a medical marijuana license does, and a drivers license, and so on. I agree it is bad we need a license to get a reduction in taxes or smoke weed without facing repercussions, but it is better than not having the ability at all. And there is no need to pull everyone down to the same level because the polygamist and incestuous aren't allowed. There has not been any coercive benefits of marriage presented. It is like the 'secure our borders' types being mad even if illegals weren't allowed government benefits.