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?
Every small gain to them is a win.
who decides about hwo get the kdis how about divorce how about who gets the dog and house then.
Homosexuals want their sham marriage to destroy the traditional family, one has to be ignorant or dumb to not know that today.
hell we have the rules for communism in 1963.
we have them using Alinsky tactics who oppose them.
then we have ex KGB saying how they want to destory America]]
just head on the radio that the military has seen a massive increase of sexual assaults/rapes on men by men last year and I guarantee that is no coincidence that don;t ask was done away with.
Also heard that this admin has spent one and a half million on a study about homosexual women not being fat.
The sooner our side speaks up about this issue the sooner our children will have a better future and the sooner we will stop this insane madness.
someone posted this earlier about drugs but I think it also applies to the homosexual agenda and the Communist rules of 1963.
When one reads the 63 rules, then the Alinsky rules and the Cloward and Poiven and then hear what this guy said and then see how the left are using the homosexual agenda to destroy the family then one has to be the dumbest most stupid fool to not think something is going on all these decades and yes it;s not the usual of I know someone and they;re nice and they love each other crap
...to be Useful Idiot paving stones upon the road to demoralization:
“According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.
The first stage being “demoralization”. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.
Most of the activity of the department [KGB] was to compile huge amount / volume of information, on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publisher, editors, journalists, uh actors, educationalists, professors of political science. Members of parliament, representatives of business circles.
Most of these people were divided roughly into two groups: those who would tow the Soviet foreign policy, they would be promoted to positions of power through media and public manipulation; [and] those who refuse the Soviet influence in their own country would be character assassinated OR executed physically, come Revolution. “
—KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov
—Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
One who doe snot understand the steps in their agenda today are either stupid, ignorant or just couldn;t careless or does want the family and American destroyed
and who decides on who gets what , you know little things like the kids then.
Time for people to wake the hell up about marriage and what the homosexuals and the radical left really want and it;s not just marriage and using the usual crap of Govt out of it is just a pointless stupid argument with a left wing kook or an idiot
hope he;s not turing into his nut case dad and giving the left presents.
I hate it when these so called lefty arguments are used to back left wing agendas and then they call themselves conservatives, they are not they;re libertarians who want drugs legal, any kind of marriage nad live a life of anarchy and od what ever they want
roblem si that someone has to decide on wo gets what when the marriage has failed and that is Govt and the church is hardly going to do that are they, so that liberal communist argument of Govt out of it is pathetic IMHO
starting to think Paul is a libetarian and not a conservative but yet again we have another libertarian who wants to fly on the republican ticket because they can;t get anywhere in the libertarian ticket and then they expect us to change our views to suit their anarchy
then who decies on the divorce issues, who gets the kids
quite nice saying Govt get ut but when you think about things then it doens;t really work like that
hell even with the founders they had meetings and the leaders of that community the local Govt settled things
LOL, yea people get married and think they will stay all their lives wiht each other but the problem is that they have kids and then want a divorce and that is when the govt steps in.
Govt out of marriage is a cop out for the simple or not thought about it folk.
I;m sick of hearing that homosexuals should marry and then it;s cousins, then get rid of age limits
Govt out of it is a cop out which sounds good but not in reality
if he;s turing into his father and giving presents tot he homosexuals and the radical left then he;s lost me and he needs to be put on the libertarian ticket not a republcian one and that goes for all the libertarians who pretend they;re conservative
What the heck are you talking about? Unmarried couples who split up bring these things to the government all the time. Except when they don't and can figure it out themselves. And if the government isn't by default involved that would mean divorcing married couples who can agree on separation without the involvement of a judge can do it themselves. Just like some of the unmarried breakups do today.
I have to say after reading everyone's reasons for why the government should stay in the marriage business, I'm more convinced than ever they should get the heck out. Immigration is not a compelling reason. Social security will be a mess, but it's going to be a mess anyway.
put divorce in the clergy, er what about two people from different religions?
Ok then do you seriously think after having kids that I woudl listen to a guy years later who never married me because he;s now dead and he;s telling me to not see my kids.
yea right, dream on, that is what anarchy is about, so if there is o law protecting this then it;s one for all and a lots of bad temper\\
I wish people would wake the hell up and stop repeating what sounds good
again who is to decide who gets my kids, my house, my money?
I;ve heard one libertarian sttae how the clergy should decide,
Like I;mgoing to listen to the clergy guy who never married me and what about two people like my wife and I who married and did nto marry in a church because of different religions?
Fact is Govt is in involved and they decide who gets what and if the courts told me after divorce I had to do something then I do it so I do not break the law but if some one who tells me to do something with my kids after my divorce and they have no legal standing ten they can take a flying leap off a bridge
Alex, things that morally ambivalent idiot libertarians believe for $1000.
do you have any idea how many ex married couples can not agree on who gets the kids and house or dog?
Living in a dream anarchy world if one thinks people will just agree on who gets their kids in a divorce and those people need to wake the hell up and stop pretending to be republican and admit they;re libertarian or liberal which is not far off from each other ,, infact the same on social issues
just reading all these comments and the couple of posters who think Govt should stay out of it use the same argument as liberals/libertarian which are the same on social issues anyway.
they live in some fantasy dream world where they think people will just leave each other, agree on the kids, who gets the house, and then I read off one poster who said that the clergy shold decide,
LOL Yea OK but what about two people from different religions, do we have a sit down with a rabbi and a Christian, yea that isn;t going to work
Wish these people would wake the hell up, maybe the impressionable idiots might one day who knows but in the meantime the radical left are loving what Paul is saying and maybe Rand is going the same way as his father/
Why can;t libertarians just admit they;re not republicans, they;re not conservatives, \Use their own party , and primary
Well maybe Rand Paul is going against the old man, who came out for sodomite marriage during the debates, and also voted to lift DADT and codify sodomy in the US Armed Forces.
Libertarians have something in common with extreme leftists -they hold a delusional belief in some utopian vision of what could be but is not and never has been. Social disorder and anarchy are just as much enemies of liberty as tyranny is...
agree, they are no better than the occupy smelly lot hwo want no Govt and do what ever they want and to hell with everyone and the country.
Pope Francis has said same-sex marriage is the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.
God bless this Holy Man an may be keep speaking the true
word of God.
totally totally agree with him and you/
I was in foster care going home to home and there is no way I wanted two men to take me in their house and let me see them living with each other or kissing or being taken to those freak parades.
I love this Pope and I;m not a catholic
yep
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.