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-go...iage-business/

[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 ?

[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 ?

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" ?

[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 $#@! 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.

[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 $#@! 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

[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 ?