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


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


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: SeekAndFind

Wow. The bloom sure came off the Rand Paul rose quick. Talk about, “shooting yourself in the foot.”

I happen to see a government role in promoting and supporting the traditional family unit. It sounds to me like Paul is running scared from the Democrat sodomite “mainstream” newsrooms and the rest of the militant faggot lobby.


77 posted on 03/14/2013 11:25:27 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

If tax policy is intends to influence society, then marit tax deductions are in order. We need children(future taxable asset).


94 posted on 03/14/2013 1:03:44 PM PDT by cornfedcowboy (Trust in God, but empty the clip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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