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taking the pure libertarian position that the state has no place in marriage, period, he should want all marriage laws repealed, including for heterosexual unions.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?
Not like he hasn’t lost me already as a voter, but this really seals the deal. He’s kind of all over the map, isn’t he.
yes it’s benefits they want. no legal justice. we are all equal under the law.
That view is still supporting gay marriage that he believes that they should receive the same tax benifts as hextrosexual marriage...
It’s still leading down the slippery slope..
Honestly, no married couples ought to recieve any tax benefits. However, since the government does give benefits then all legal unions ought to be covered.
I don’t agree with gay marriage from a religious perspective... but legal unions has no religious connotation.. no slippery slope here.
Homo marriage shouldn't be even be considered in America, or even debated.
Place them all in the lobotomy line at Crazy-R-us.
If gay churches want to do gay marriages, that’s their purogative, doesnt mean it ought to be recognized legally as such or that individuals have to recognize it.
Yes, do your part to change society, I’m all for that. But legally, the government should be kept out of this whole deal with the exception of granting unions the same legal benefits as marriage. Let society steer the ship on society and reign in government intrusion as much as possible.
Numerous states have banned Homo marriage and the feds trumped them all,
unconstitutionally too I might add. Americans are speaking and our Gov is
branding them with stars on their foreheads.
I'm not attacking you, just venting.
I believe strongly in states rights. The feds are always over stepping their bounds, same with gay marriage. That said, marriage perks, like tax incentive, hospital visitation, etc are guarenteed by the feds... While I agree that gay marriage ought not to be recognized as such, gay couples should be able to receive these perks.
But like I said before: In my perfect world, I don’t think there ought to be any marriage or union perks at all, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious construct, not a tool for streamlining your taxes.
How much we want is irrelevant, federal government has spoken, and they have the authority on the issue. I agree on how things should be, but it’s too late to tell the federal government what it can or can’t do, not unless we elect a whole bunch of politicians with libertarian leanings to congress coupled with a libertarian POTUS, their authority lines will not change.
I don’t agree with gay marriage either from a religious and moral perspective.
It seems that heterosexuals couples did just fine 50,70,100 years ago without tax breaks because society as a whole was geared towards it.
A marriage between a man and a woman has been the backbone of our American society, and other society for thousands of years and we have done fine with it.
No need to change it now.
I don’t know whom you will support in this race but I and others are going to support the most conservative in this race who has the best chance to win without having any doubts in where he or she ( Ted Cruz Sarah Palin 2016 ) stands on issues.
And if I or others see a canadate who is faking it or pandering just to get votes, or someone like Jeb Bush who we do not want to see as a nominee, we are going to speak the truth and call them out on it.
nice phrase!
ditto!
Right. They worship sex above all other gods.
Ladies ? Hillary Clinton and the Feminists war on men is real, that includes your men ladies.
Ladies if you love and cherish the men in your life please warn as many women about Hillary Clinton’s and Feminist’s real war on men....
Genesis 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The position you’ve outlined is essentially what Sen. Paul said in this interview above. Did you read the article?
Or I guess, rather than this HotAir blog, you should watch the CNN interview interview it seems to be referring to. that’s where Paul expounded the position that’s basically the same as your post 21.
They think they are God a lot too.
And that would be the Devil?
I’m sorry. I’d like to see him object to the interviewer’s use of the term “gay marriage” in the first place.
In my understanding of language - and the historical meaning of the word ‘marriage’ as it refers, in English, to a union between two human beings - it refers to heterosexual union.
He seems to be trying to sit on the fence; and that disinclines me to believe that he won’t sit there on other issues, as well, when it’s politically expedient.
(I’ll admit that I’m an idealist; and I despise politics. So, take my comments only for what they’re worth to you.)
-JT
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.