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taking the pure libertarian position that the state has no place in marriage, period, he should want all marriage laws repealed, including for heterosexual unions.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?
I am not a Rand Paul supporter, though I have been convinced by SOME libertarian ideas, and have voted that way in the long past. During the past couple of decades, seeing the breakdown of the American family and of moral values, I’ve changed my views.
In this case, I think Sen. Paul needs to brush up on the dictionary definition of ‘marriage’.
Even now, if you google ‘marriage definition’, the first definition always boils down to ‘the union of one male and one female’.
I’ve got no problem with people entering into any legal partnership that they want; but the word MARRIAGE has a meaning that has been with us forever; and words MEAN things.
I’ll say it again:
I don’t think that the institution of marriage ever grew from the mere concept that two people “loving” one another, should simply and joyously celebrate and formalize their love in a ceremony and commitment.
I think it probably had to do with the acknowledgement of ancient people that the union of male and female resulted in a child. It was an honoring of their awe of the procreative act; of the awareness that the subsequent family unit constituted THE basic unit of human society; and their wise urge was to consecrate and institutionalize that union and unit.
-JT
I’m sure people like Paul do not care for the republican party nor conservatives. They use our platform to push their own agenda and try to have us change our views with their witty slogans like they do for drugs etc.
The basic idea behind Paul and his lot sound good and nearly had me until I looked into it more . The more I found out about their views the more I am convinced it is not for me or this country and in more aligned with the left
Typical libertarian confusion. Profess to love all kinds of freedom, but fail to recognize that sexual freedom robs from Christian freedom. Libertarians cannot decide which freedom is more important — sex or religion. Traditional God-fearing freedom don’t have that problem.
Cue this: “Our Constitution was made for the government of a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
In other words: The Constitution is NOT the blueprint for American society. It is the founding document of a government, and nothing else.
The Constitution does NOT mandate “gay marriage.”
The Constitution cannot PROTECT America from “gay marriage.”
Now that America generally accepts “gay marriage,” America is simply going to dissolve and disintegrate.
In the absence of nuclear war, the Constitution will remain behind glass at the National Archives, a fact that is and will remain wholly irrelevant to the dissolution of America.
I’m kind of confused about the “treated fairly under the law” business.
Anyone can be ‘treated fairly under the law’, in the case of creating a civil union. All they have to do is find a lawyer and draw up a contract, make a will, have everything down in black-and-white.
It’s the appropriation of the word MARRIAGE that I have a problem with.
Words have meanings, rooted in history and usage.
When we decide that words mean nothing, and can be changed upon a whim, we’ve lost everything. Anybody can do anything to anyone else, if words have no meaning. If words have no meaning, then LAW has no meaning.
Famous Quote: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
-JT
which is why I have no time for liberaltarians
agree with every word
RAND PAUL = TROJAN HORSE CANADATE / STALKING HORSE CANDATE.
TROJAN HORSE CANADATE to infiltrate to pollute the waters for conservatives , and to prevent a true conservative to emerg from the pack as our nominee....
Just who is Rand Paul a stalking horse for ?
Jeb Bush ?
Lindsey Gram ?
Marco Rubio ?
That’s how I feel about Cruz. “Pleeeze, don’t be another Paul Ryan!”
One thing about Cruz that bothers me: I don’t know whether his support for Israel is based on American national security, or is it based on a theological belief that the State of Israel IS “the people of Israel” or “the Jews.” I.e., that the existence of the modern State of Israel is mandated by Almighty God.
Mr. Paul, there is no such thing as "fair" before the law. There is justice and there is equality before the law but fair is a place where you go on ride and eat cotton candy.
Fair is a feeling. There is no way that people can be treated "fairly" when fair is defined as how someone feels about something.
The bank robber does not think it is "fair" that he is going to jail. The homosexual thinks it is not "fair" that he is not put in a special category and give rights that are not given to normal people.
Marriage between a man and woman produces life....
Marriage between homosexuals produces strife....
the left have no problems with most of Pauls views
they and the left told us that it was their private business and now we see the founding of the country and the 1st amendment being stripped away and yet liberataians still can’t be honest
Since he ( Ted Cruz ) is a born again Christian, then yes, it should be theological first, then national security next..
Because they can’t be honest, or else ? They will claim the media is attacking them with ligitimate questions.
Like Paul getting snotty in his interviews when asked questions about his flip flops?
That’s VERY troubling. It means the difference between intelligent foreign policy and endless war in the Middle East.
They are treated the same. Homosexual males can’t marry males and heterosexual males can’t marry a male. What’s the problem? Of course, we’re on the losing side of this argument. It’s coming. I just think the people should have a say in making the laws we live under. No federal judge should be able to invalidate a state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. But, it’s over. Thanks to Obama and the libs we are living under a judicial and executive tyranny. One would never know that Article I of the Constitution deals with the legislative branch. Jefferson nailed it:
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
“One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825)
Doesn’t support gay marriage, views that as a state issue. He is saying their ‘union’ should receive same tax benefits etc as a bona fide marriage. Next question.
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.