Posted on 04/13/2015 5:55:38 PM PDT by markomalley
My headline makes it sound like he’s endorsing legalizing SSM but he’s not doing that. Or is he? He sort of is, actually — he wants marriage, or “marriage,” to be a matter of purely private contract for gay couples, which would lend legal force to their unions. But what about for straights? If Rand’s taking the pure libertarian position that the state has no place in marriage, period, he should want all marriage laws repealed, including for heterosexual unions. If he’s not taking that position, and I don’t think he is, then I’m not sure why he doesn’t simply endorse civil unions for gays. That would have the same effect as his private-contract scheme by retaining the label of “marriage” for straights except that gay unions would be formally recognized by the state. This weird hybrid proposal, in which apparently straights are governed by statute and gays are governed by contract, feels less like a considered solution than Rand trying to give half a loaf each to his libertarian and conservative constituencies. If you’re a libertarian who thinks the state should stay out of private relationships, great — you get that here. Sort of. If you’re a social conservative who thinks gay relationships shouldn’t have the same status as straight ones, great — you get that here. Sort of. Everyone happy?
Well, no. Supporters of gay-marriage will hate this because, to them, equal treatment under the law means equal recognition of their relationships under the law. A system where all marriage was privately contracted might do it; a system where all marriage was recognized by the state surely would. A system where gays remain effectively outside the statutory code, though, while straights are inside it would be challenged in court as discriminatory just as civil unions have been. I don’t know if social conservatives would be thrilled either with the thought of privatizing marriage for a subset of the population for fear of the slippery slope it might create. If gays end up in a system of private contract, how long until political pressure would lead states to push straights into that system too? I wrote about that the last time Rand made noise on gay marriage back in 2013:
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[‘s] 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.
Right or wrong? At this late hour in the SSM debate, I think opponents would be more open to a system of private contract for all marriages than supporters would be open to a two-tier system where straights get formal recognition while gays get contracts. But I doubt there’s much support for either, especially in traditionalist bastions like Iowa.
Exit question via Scott Shackford: If Rand Paul thinks the rise of gay marriage is part of a “moral crisis,” as he said recently, why is he legitimizing gay unions by offering them the force of contract law?
He’s plain nuts like his daddy.
Homosexuals are treated the same as us.
I can marry the opposite sex just like them.
I can’t marry the same sex just like them.
Oh it’s special rights they want.
Paul is pandering to blacks, homosexuals illegals, college kids with his approved tax breaks.
He will do anything and say anything to make daddy proud.
They say there is no perfect candidate but so far I have seen from Cruz agrees with my views and he can articulate these positions which is something I have not seen for a long time from a republican.
Paul’s a kook! Paul’s off his meds!
Rand Paul shut up.
Praying hard.
Yep. No different than any other Washington insider. Campaigns with the wind.
the homonazis don’t want to be treated fairly they want to be bowed down to and worshipped.
“People ought to be treated fairly under the law”???
Wasn’t owning Slaves legal?
Wasn’t Sodomy ILLEGAL in every State?
So we really aren’t talking about being “treated fairly” are we, sounds more like: “Some people deserve Special Rights under the law”
UP YOURS RUBIO!! Oh, maybe that’s how you like it.
oops, was reading about Rubio just before, Up Yours Rand Paul
LOL, I read your post and thought WTF then saw your other post
We would like the Rand Paul supporters chime in on this discussion.
How is Rand Paul a conservative if he is in support of gay marriage ?
And how is he NOT pandering to the gay lobby crowd in his views towards gay marriage ?
Ted Cruz is the ONLY choice for conservatives in 2016.
I think Thomas Jefferson thought that homosexuals should be castrated and lesbians should have part of their face gouged out. The Founding Fathers did not look kindly upon perverts.
It probably applies to him also, as most of them
Typical amoral sh*t for brains libertarian. They have no morals, only “standards” - and those can always be lowered.
If this idiot think nobody an see through his smoke screen, then he is as delusional as his daddy.
Guarantee you one thing - the libertarians will, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
They never have a snowball’s chance in Hell to win an election - yet the8ir damnable obstinate arrogance keeps them as a constant spoiler in elections that truly matter to the survival of the republic.
Keep in mind what John Adams said about this republic:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” – John Adams
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” – John Adams
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.” – John Adams
Power always sincerely, conscientiously, de très bon foi, believes itself right. Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Feb. 2, 1816.
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814.
“Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” – John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, Jul. 17, 1775
“…Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. – John Adams
***
Men, such as the Pauls, believe they may sever the benefits of freedom from the moral bulwark that true liberty requires to survive, propagate itself, and prosper its posterity. Such men always think themselves wiser than God - and thus they become fools.
that means no affirmative action...no "diversity" hires....
if the govt wants a legal civil union then let it happen.....just don't force church's to do what their beliefs forbid them to do....
the law fails when it no longer function from a rational basis ....as a drink water and alcohol are not equal...
And while a libertarian might think there should be no restrictions on access to alcohol .......
it doesn't imply there should be free public fountains of alcohol because there's free public fountains of water
Heterosexual drive is a built-in biological necessity of life.... homosexuality has no similar rational necessity....if neither was necessary why would the libertarian even support the concept of government licensed marriage....why should the government be encouraging any particular action?
agree
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.