Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul: Letís get marriage out of the tax code
Hotair ^ | 03/14/2013 | AllahPundit

Posted on 03/14/2013 7:41:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

This isn't news because it's novel for a Paul to be saying such things --- his dad once called for getting the government out of marriage on a GOP presidential primary debate stage --- but because of Rand Paul's growing prominence in the GOP. If he could rally a hawkish party to oppose the president's power to use drones against terrorists in certain circumstances, can he rally a socially conservative party to find an accommodation on gay marriage?

Paul says foreign policy is an instrumental way to expand the GOP, but it’s not the only way. Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

I assume that’s part of a broader ambition to make marriage a wholly private function, which is vintage Paul insofar as it’s a clever attempt to sell libertarian wine in conservative bottles. He does the same thing vis-a-vis foreign aid to Israel: Cutting aid will actually lead to more robust Israeli self-defense because Israel will no longer feel obliged to seek American approval when responding to Hamas. I’ve seen other libertarians and paleocons argue for cutting aid to Tel Aviv and, needless to say, the idea that it might make Israel more aggressive towards its enemies was … not a key factor in their reasoning, to put it mildly. Likewise here, most libertarians support making marriage a matter of private contract not because they feel angst about “redefining marriage” — the ones I know are all perfectly fine with, if not enthusiastic about, states legalizing SSM — but because it’s a move towards smaller government, especially on moral issues. Paul, however, is pitching this as a sort of escape hatch for social conservatives who don’t want to see blue states or the Supreme Court lend the imprimatur of American government to gays marrying. He supports traditional marriage; he doesn’t want to see marriage redefined. So … why not eliminate state sanction from marriage entirely? Indeed, why not, says Jen Rubin:

If we were starting a system from scratch, I suspect that would be an easier sell. But getting the federal government out of the marriage business, deferring to the states and allowing individuals to, as he says, enter into contracts with one another, can be the way out of the gay marriage thicket for the GOP, I would argue.

The Supreme Court, depending on its ruling in the same-sex marriage cases, may assist this process by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the biggest aggrandizement of federal power on marriage in my lifetime (maybe ever).

Conservatives understand that there is a realm of conduct left to churches, synagogues, families, localities and individuals. The essence of Burkean conservatism is a healthy regard for and respect for those realms and for the customs, habits and beliefs that flow from those free associations. Whatever the methodology, conservatives at the national level need to extract themselves from a losing battle that should not be within the purview of the federal government.

That bit at the end is another reason this is newsworthy: The timing is propitious. Ten years ago, social cons laughed at libertarians for suggesting that marriage go completely private. Ten years later, with several states having legalized gay marriage, poll trends among young voters promising more legalization, and the Supreme Court poised to extend marriage rights to gays as a matter of equal protection, maybe they’ll consider it the lesser of two evils. See, e.g., Frank Fleming’s piece at PJM arguing that marriage is, after all, a religious custom and the state has no business trying to reconfigure religious customs. Better to leave marriage entirely within the private realm so that churches can protect their traditions. The timing’s propitious too in that the GOP’s desperate for ways to build goodwill with younger voters and Paul’s ploy is one likely way of doing it. It’s similar to what Mitch Daniels said about pot a few months ago: The GOP doesn’t need to endorse legalization, all it needs to do is let the power to decide devolve to a more local level of government. In the case of marijuana, Daniels pushed federalism as a solution. In the case of marriage, Paul’s pushing private contract, i.e. self-government at the individual level, as the answer. In both cases, the GOP gets to punt on a hot-button issue in a way that, maybe hopefully, won’t alienate social conservatives. They’re not backing weed and SSM; they’re merely striking a blow for limited government by letting people decide for themselves.

All that said, and as someone who supports legalizing gay marriage, I’ve never understood why social cons would go for this. At the core of the anti-SSM argument, as I understand it, is the belief that man/woman marriage is qualitatively different from gay unions; barring gays from marrying under state law is a way to recognize that difference. It’s not that state sanction operates as some sort of “benediction” for straights, it’s that it a mechanism of differentiation with all other types of unions. If you move to Paul’s paradigm where everything’s a matter of contract, there’s no longer any such mechanism. Every couple with a private agreement is effectively equal; the state will enforce an agreement between gays just as it will an agreement between straights. How does that satisfy the social-con objection to SSM? Likewise, some conservatives support state sanction of marriage because they believe the state has a role in promoting marriage as a social good and domesticating force. I’ve always thought that was a good argument for gay marriage too, but we needn’t argue about that; the point is, if the state gets out the marriage business it’s no longer officially promoting anything. And finally, if you’re worried about gay marriage for fear that it’s another step down the cultural slippery slope towards polygamy, why on earth would you favor a paradigm of private contract? A multi-party contract would place polygamous groups on the same legal footing as couples. If polygamy’s your chief concern, you’re probably much better off sticking with state-sanctioned marriage and taking your chances with the Supreme Court. Exit question: What am I missing here? Any social conservatives want to make the case for why Paul’s right?


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 113th; homosexualagenda; libertarians; marriage; randpaul; samesexmarriage; taxcode; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

1 posted on 03/14/2013 7:41:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code

I'd rather see the Patriot Act brought up, discussed, and recinded. It has bred a police state.

2 posted on 03/14/2013 7:46:44 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The problem is that, it is not what the gay agenda wants....They want to force every institution, to consider gay marriages on par with heterosexual ones, and force religious institutions to give them equal weighting, and they will not stop until they get it.

You give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.


3 posted on 03/14/2013 7:50:29 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
At the core of the anti-SSM argument, as I understand it, is the belief that man/woman marriage is qualitatively different from gay unions; barring gays from marrying under state law is a way to recognize that difference

Apparently, Allah Pundit doesn't understand the core of the conservative argument against same sex marriage.

1. Same sex marriage will make our culture more dangerous.

2. Heterosexual marriage is potentially procreative. Homosexual marriage never is. The state has an interest in the best arrangement for rearing children; it has none in who you get your jollies with.

3. Children have a right to be raised by their own mother and father.

4. The above means that if you allow the word "marriage" to cover anything, then eventually reality will force you to come up with a new word so you can distinguish those relationships that are potentially procreative.

4 posted on 03/14/2013 7:51:25 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

#3. is your most powerful argument in today’s society, but I’m intrigued by #1. Can you elaborate and provide details?


5 posted on 03/14/2013 8:06:13 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree with Paul on this.
Who will play Solomon and ask the state to exit the sacrament business? The State has no business in the Church’s business.
Though, we here know that the radical agenda of “Progressives” is to force the Church by law to accept homosexuality as normal. They mean to rewrite the Holy Script. What will be left of Judeao-Christian doctrine then but a Success for the Left?


6 posted on 03/14/2013 8:08:59 AM PDT by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The fundamental problem conservatives have is not expressing the argument correctly.

Same-sex marriage is not about EQUALITY. It is about the redefinition and destruction of marriage.

If redefined, polyamorists, Muslims, Mormons, and anyone lese with money will be able to redefine it as well.


7 posted on 03/14/2013 8:13:43 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

At this point I think all governments should just get out of the marriage business altogether. Stop issuing mariage licences and make everyone file taxes as a single. Then if their church, temple, coven, lesbian action league, gay men’s choir group or whatever wants to proclaim them married they can knock themselves out.


8 posted on 03/14/2013 8:15:02 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Take your silver lining and SHOVE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

Amen!!!

9 posted on 03/14/2013 8:19:08 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
They want to force every institution, to consider gay marriages on par with heterosexual ones, and force religious institutions to give them equal weighting, and they will not stop until they get it.

That is CLEARLY true... Even in states where they have been granted EVERY other benefit with a Civil Union, they are not happy... What they want is, for their bizarre behavior to be consider "normal" and "equal"... They crave something that is not reality, and never will be.

10 posted on 03/14/2013 8:20:24 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You're right and this is exactly why Rand Paul is also right.

The government, bolstered by voter results in several lefty states, have clearly demonstrated why the government needs to get out of the marriage business and be content with writing laws defining civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever the hell else they wish to call it.

Leave marriage to the churches and synagogues alone to define.

If a worker demonstrates gross incompetence in a necessary skill-set and no inclination to improve but, indeed, a heightened stubbornness to cling to said incompetence, you assign them to a different line of work or get rid of them completely. So it should be with our government's involvement in marriage.

11 posted on 03/14/2013 8:21:25 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE :”Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code”

If DOMA is over-turned by the SCOTUS then it would make sense to do that, but otherwise it looks like another attempt to ‘end discrimination against gays’

12 posted on 03/14/2013 8:21:55 AM PDT by sickoflibs (O's sequester Apocalypse tour just proved why we need the 2nd amendment more than ever NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Treating Gay Marriage differently under the tax code is, legally, the SAFEST part of the conservative position. The goverment doesn’t have to treat everyone equally with taxes...

It’s all the other stuff, like benefits, that are the problem.. IMO

That said, I agree that, getting government OUT of the marriage business altogether is now the only way to save “Marriage” as God intended.


13 posted on 03/14/2013 8:23:17 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SomeCallMeTim
What they want is, for their bizarre behavior to be consider "normal" and "equal".

I would dare say, they won't even be happy with "equal". They don't want to merely be "tolerated", they want to be "celebrated."

14 posted on 03/14/2013 8:29:06 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I agree with this for the most part. I also don’t think government should be able to marry people in offices. A marriage is done in a church, or some other kind of religious temple. It’s a ritual. If you’re an atheist, you can’t really be married, though you can sign onto a union of mutual financial interest and responsibility. A marriage is before divinity, a pact not only with a person, but with God.

This may be the best way to win the argument. Get government out of marriage, then homosexuals will have to join “homosexual churches” to get married, and as such progressive churches quickly lose membership and collapse, eventually, they just won’t be able to get “married”. They’ll be back in the deviant wilderness with the zoophiles and the polygamists.


15 posted on 03/14/2013 8:30:42 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

While Paul’s idea is interesting from a theoretical perspective, there is a perfectly rational reason that government has given a privileged position to marriage in the first place. Traditional families have been integral to the formation of society and human beings are social animals. In times of need, people have historically turned first to family. The raising of children, emotional and economic support and other social benefits derive from the traditional family. If we do away with this, the need will remain and people will demand that an ever larger government fill the role of economic, emotional and social support that is now provided by the family. I doubt this is Paul’s desired outcome.


16 posted on 03/14/2013 8:37:02 AM PDT by Lonely NY Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Same sex marriage will make our culture more dangerous.

Exactly! Another concern I have had since the beginning of the gay marriage argument has been gay foreignor rights to live in the US if they marry a gay American.

17 posted on 03/14/2013 8:37:52 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonely NY Conservative

A problem is that with LBJ’s “Great Society” and welfare, which replaced a parent with a government paycheck, that ship sailed a long time ago.


18 posted on 03/14/2013 8:38:14 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; darrellmaurina
If we were starting a system from scratch, I suspect that would be an easier sell. But getting the federal government out of the marriage business, deferring to the states and allowing individuals to, as he says, enter into contracts with one another, can be the way out of the gay marriage thicket for the GOP, I would argue.

The Supreme Court, depending on its ruling in the same-sex marriage cases, may assist this process by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the biggest aggrandizement of federal power on marriage in my lifetime (maybe ever).

Conservatives understand that there is a realm of conduct left to churches, synagogues, families, localities and individuals. The essence of Burkean conservatism is a healthy regard for and respect for those realms and for the customs, habits and beliefs that flow from those free associations. Whatever the methodology, conservatives at the national level need to extract themselves from a losing battle that should not be within the purview of the federal government.

Kuyper "spheres of sovereignty" PING

19 posted on 03/14/2013 8:40:05 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

They are a tiny per cent of the voting population. Why does anyone listen to them?


20 posted on 03/14/2013 8:41:19 AM PDT by jch10 (Hey GOP! Only Conservatives get my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jch10

Because they have a significant hold over our media.


21 posted on 03/14/2013 8:42:32 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lonely NY Conservative

One cannot really run a society on pure libertarian principles. It just won’t work.

Eventually, the “shoulds” and “oughts” of human life will get in the way.

The moment you have LAWS, you are implicitly admitting that certain moral principles must be adhered to by society whether individuals like it or not.

And these LAWS will depend on what Moral Values ( i.e. First Principles ) society adheres to. It can be informed by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Atheism, but you cannot escape or avoid adhering to something.


22 posted on 03/14/2013 8:43:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Viennacon

Rand is right, as far as I’m concerned-the fed has no business in what is a religious ritual/sacrament at all, period-it has become a slippery slope.

I was taught that marriage is a sacrament-not a celebration of signing a contract at a courthouse. I don’t see the word “marriage” in the constitution listed as an inalienable right, either-leave it to the religious institutions to define what marriage is or is not. I believe it is the only way to stop the government meddling in church business.


23 posted on 03/14/2013 8:50:21 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This where Rand Paul is destructine and not a conservative. Obviously he doesn’t believe in the natural law as our founders did. Why o why has the natural law changed in some way? I’m not sure you can call yourself a Christian and support the destruction of society and the family.


24 posted on 03/14/2013 8:54:25 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

but the media doesn’t have a significant hold on anyone, does it?


25 posted on 03/14/2013 8:54:31 AM PDT by stuartcr ("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The other thing about the “get government out of the marriage business” position is that it is absolutely cowardly and shows a real lack of courage to defend what is right and good about America.


26 posted on 03/14/2013 8:59:17 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Paul's idea would push things in exactly the wrong direction. Sodomy is a crime. Everyone knows this, especially homosexuals. To claim that it's not a crime—or that it's a crime outside the jurisdiction of every level of government—is violence against the innocent. The consequences of such a move would come to include the legalization of what already goes on outside the law: the buying and selling of children as sex slaves.

It's not for nothing that members of the homosexual lobby and the abortion lobby are always found at each other's fund-raisers. The abortionists, as O'Keefe showed, serve the needs of pimps who run under-age girls, for which they are reimbursed with taxpayer dollars for "indigent women" under Title X. The homosexual males want to legalize and expand their trade in young boys. Lesbians are along for the ride, undermining marriage for the sake of sticking it to less-damaged women who were able to bond with men.

The law is not just a teacher. It's an enabler. It needs to be made to enable good, rather than utter evil.

27 posted on 03/14/2013 9:00:46 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I really don’t know what the answer is to this mess, but wouldn’t individual states already honor contracts between individuals on pretty much this sort of thing?


28 posted on 03/14/2013 9:02:44 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

so you’re all for government intervention as long as you agree with what they are intervening. Got it.

I’ve had this argument for as long as I can remember. If the tax system were flat then the government wouldn’t need to care who is married. It should rightfully be a decision of the Church or other institutions to decide what marriage is and who can be married. I’m sure the true believers don’t accept gay “marriage” as a part of a perfect plan of the almighty. Support for gay “marriage” in the context of religious institutions would necessarily plummet.


29 posted on 03/14/2013 9:06:45 AM PDT by wiseprince
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

marriage is not religious under the law.

using religion to argue marriage surrenders the debate to the left in total. for law, logic trumps mere faith.

Logic is the rule here. Marriage is about family and what is a legal family for the furtherance of society. Child production, child raising, pathernity and maternity, inheritance, and property rights.

marriage is a commonon law institution. It is not a legislative fiction. Any legislative change can only be narrowly construed. For example adoption does not exist at common law, thus all adoption law is a legislative act and narrowly construed.

Society rewards the institution not the individual recreational sex.

There is no love test in the constitution either.

There is no international tourism law.

There is no immigration law in the constitution.

logic must rule, faith is a tool of the enemy (ala the left saying christians must always surrender to the lions)


30 posted on 03/14/2013 9:07:34 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

What has radically changed in the last 230+ years with regards to the natural law that the founders fully belived in that warrants this radical chabge in the way that government respects and acknowledges traditions and beliefs of almost every human civilization? Nothing.


31 posted on 03/14/2013 9:08:53 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

It goes beyond that. They see it as just and freeing if children down to the preschool level are taught that they can be whatever sex—or something otherwise or in between, that they’d like to be. I’ve come across that argument already.


32 posted on 03/14/2013 9:13:20 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

RE: as far as I’m concerned-the fed has no business in what is a religious ritual/sacrament at all, period-it has become a slippery slope.

Let’s put our thinking caps on for a while.

Let’s say that the term “marriage” is not longer an institution the government ( Fed or State or local ) recognizes.

How does the government administer laws like immigration, spousal contracts, divorce, social security, etc. if we do away with the recognition of marriage?


33 posted on 03/14/2013 9:19:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wiseprince

Does the government regulate private contracts thru the public courts or not? Is not the contract between husband and wife the most important contract that can be put into force?


34 posted on 03/14/2013 9:19:33 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

I agree with you - what do we do about Social Security spousal benefits? I see that as the only real problem


35 posted on 03/14/2013 9:22:46 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I TOLD YOU ALL

HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!

HIS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IS BASED ON IMMORALITY, NOT FREEDOM

LICENSE, NOT LIBERTY!


36 posted on 03/14/2013 9:23:12 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot; All

Last time I check Sodomy is not a crime.. I take it you want the Government to arrest people who does Sodomy???


37 posted on 03/14/2013 9:24:45 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Third Parties are for losers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
spousal contracts, divorce, social security, etc. if we do away with the recognition of marriage?

The only one of those that's a problem is Social Security. Divorce (division of property) is already common among Hollywood's unmarried. I would like to know how SS would be handled if the Fed got out of the marriage business (which I think they should).

38 posted on 03/14/2013 9:25:48 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

If the institution of marriage and raising a family isn’t directly implied in the phrase “life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” I don’t know what is.


39 posted on 03/14/2013 9:28:10 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

Goddamn. Rand, what a moron.

Why are we capitulating on one of our most important issues?

Cross him off the list for 2016. He coulda been a contender.


40 posted on 03/14/2013 9:28:29 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

RE: The only one of those that’s a problem is Social Security.

Immigration too.

People don’t just immigrate without their spouses. How do you have an immigration law that does not recognize a person’s marriage from another country?


41 posted on 03/14/2013 9:29:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

ALL social issues should be taken out of the federal government’s hands. Paul is right. Or we could just go on fighting about it forever and screwing with a tax code already so fouled up it will never be fixed.


42 posted on 03/14/2013 9:31:00 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

You cannot separate social policy from fiscal policy....that’s what allowed the government to grow into the leviathan that it is today.


43 posted on 03/14/2013 9:32:36 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree the very idea that the Government should demand a Licence to get married is objectionable.

Just to remind everyone out there: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND CANNOT MARRY YOU!

The Government is an incoherent institution of force, not a wife or husband.

Only God can marry you and thus only God’s consent is of any legitimately indispensable significance.

Indeed it wasn’t until around 100 years ago at the beginning of the “progressive era” that any american government ever became so arrogant as to demand a say in your marriage.

Let that say end now!


44 posted on 03/14/2013 9:33:17 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
I'm not going to say I'm supporting Rand. I'd have supported his father over a Dem, but that was about it. As I see it the Fed support marriage in two ways- 1) via the tax benefit if only one spouse works 2) the second way is SS spousal benefits.

I'm sick of hearing about homosexuals and all their supposed discrimination that they can't marry. Do I believe that two people of the same gender living together as husband and wife put their souls in immortal peril? Yes. Do I think they should have the right to do that in a free country? Yes. Do I think the government should call them married? No. Do I care if the government thinks my wife and I are married? No. Do I care if the Lord pours out blessings on my wife and me in the beautiful sacrament of marriage? Yes. That was why we married in a church. I don't really understand why CHristians care if our decidedly unGodly government should get out of the marriage business.

45 posted on 03/14/2013 9:38:05 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Good point about immigration. I’m not familiar with immigration law at all - are people currently allowed to emigrate with their dependents?


46 posted on 03/14/2013 9:42:29 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

“ALL social issues should be taken out of the federal government’s hands. Paul is right. Or we could just go on fighting about it forever and screwing with a tax code already so fouled up it will never be fixed.”

There is an extremely simple understanding that should be passed on to those too lasy to bother to read the Federal Constitution:

If we cannot agree in Washington it should be left to the States. If we cannot agree in our state house it should be left to the local government. If we cannot agree there it should be left to the family.

Government on every issue is by no means indispensable. Men & women are perfectly capable of govern themselves by the rules of nature on almost every matter of life. No better proof of this fact can be more easily found than to observe in history that we have before governed ourselfs on the matters.

It is the objection of every party arguing for change that the method of self-government is imperfect just as it is the shortsightedness of every party to fail to see the imperfections of their own preferred method.

Let us agree to disagree, and to live by the resulting rules of mutual respect for each-others right to self-government.


47 posted on 03/14/2013 9:43:07 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

not just dependents, you can bring along 15 immediate relatives too. and then they can and so on.


48 posted on 03/14/2013 9:43:57 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

“I don’t really understand why CHristians care if our decidedly unGodly government should get out of the marriage business.”

Do you care about Habeaus corpus and Trial by Jury?


49 posted on 03/14/2013 9:47:50 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Perhaps you can help me see the capitulation here JC?

The concept of marriage licences is a liberal idea designed to give the state(and thus them) some lever of control over our marriages.

That control is now being abused so why not just wipe it out? Return marriage to the exclusive province of the church & God where it has belonged for many thousands of years prior to the “progressive era”.

I see no capitulation here, On the contrary. I see only jumping to the logical conclusion to cut off the left.


50 posted on 03/14/2013 9:48:33 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson