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?
Er, okay, if you say so. What's your point about that?
The government certainly doesn't either. The churches and synagogues might.
LOVE your tagline, BTW.
I think you're underestimating the envy, the crazy, and the evil. They can't do real marriage, because they're not willing to do what it takes to "get there." Rather than change themselves, they want to change marriage, minimize it, destroy it.
There is no common ground with crazy people. For them, the self-righteousness, the operatic fuss, and the conflict are the whole point. It's certainly not being married—gay "marriage" divorce rates are through the roof, even for lesbians.
thank you.
Vast majority of what? (Are you a college student or something? People don't do half of what they say they do. . .)
Yours is a point I along with countless other Social Conservatives have been making for a very long time.
You are absolutely correct. It’s not about the tax code, it’s about destroying the institution of marriage and its religious roots in GOD’s ordination of marriage being one man, one woman.
I dunno about "vast majority" - but at least a substantial minority.
Vast majority of what? (Are you a college student or something?
Take it from this 49-year-old married man - it's not just for college students.
I don’t deny that there are cases where the Government needs to recognize a union, but not necessarily the union of marriage.
Marriage is a family union which is inherently based upon the power of God not state. Even the State in most divorce proceedings dos not recognize its own power to break that union merely end its own legal enforcement of said union.
If you ask me, then someone who wants a real marriage goes through a religious institution such as the Catholic or Mormon church. Nether of which recognize divorce.
I would very much like my own denomination to provide a similar service in the form of recognizing and registering real marriages.
For now, people need to recognize that the State will offer you no real stability nor unity with your spouse and thus no real marriage. That family bond must come from no other than God & your allegiance to him.
To place your faith in the state in this matter has proven itself to be for noght. The State has not a moral nor stable fiber left in it.
Agreed.
A law that will apply to many, but only be enforced against a few, is a bad law. Giving the state such power to pick and choose invites abuse and tyranny.
I’m presuming that it wouldn’t actually be enforced against married couples, many of whom do these very things. If it is, that makes the law all the more tyrannical.
I don't agree that if anti-sodomy laws are less likely to be enforced against married couples (man-and-woman ones), that makes them tyrannical. Privacy happens. Married couples are entitled to a great deal of privacy, and unmarried couples, quite a bit less. Part of this has to do with public order, and the fact that you need to shield that order against scandalous behavior in order to protect nearby children and adults from its consequences. Unchaste or perverse acts have consequences—a kind of ripple effect of coarseness and recklessness that emanates from people whose lives revolve around gratification for its own sake.
Acts between people who aren't married are intrinsically more "public," because their relation to each other isn't permanent. A gay bar is a lot more public, and that's why the cops used to bust them. As they did non-gay bars that were essentially prostitution shopping centers.
Societies disappear and die without children. We have slipped below replacement level in our society, I think because our idea that various intoxicating substances and various acts against the natural law, because they can be gratifying to individuals, are a public right under all circumstances. They're not rights, but wrongs.
Locales always used to limit these activities and others such as loitering, by local codes, and under the U.S. Constitution, they have every right to do so. The Founders would have been appalled had they not—religious people, who are the intended beneficiaries of the USC, do not casually tolerate open immorality. If we want to follow the Constitution, we have to pay attention to where it says "Congress shall pass no law . . ." and where it explicitly leaves the rest "to the States and the People, respectively." If we don't like the blue-noses upstate, the USC allows us to move to Greenwich Village, where the local codes are very different indeed.
Well, it’s good to know where he stands.
With the libertarians - “let’s destroy marriage and help the homo agenda while pretending not to!” Except Libertarians don’t pretend not to.
Historically, marriage was a religious and cultural institution, not a legal one. Government only inserted itself into the issue when it wanted to do some social engineering and/or taxing.
I’m all in favor of getting government completely out of the marriage business. It is none of their business. I’m in favor of marriage (as the term has been understood for thousands of years), but not in favor of government subsidies or penalties. And I’m especially not in favor of government intrusion into my personal business in any way, shape, or form.
It’s really none of the government’s business whether I’m married or not. That’s between me, my spouse, and God. The only other entities who should have any interest in it are my family and friends. Not governments or businesses.
Want to get the marriage out of the tax code?
Pass the Fair Tax.
For any other retirement system, you get to name your beneficiary. You don’t with SS. The government provides survivor benefits. This would have to be changed.
Regarding immigration.
I can see how a marriage license proves a couple is married. But regarding dependent children, how does the immigrant prove the children are theirs?
There is so much immigration from third world and fourth world countries today, I cannot believe all of these immigrants have marriage licenses and birth certificates of their children.
The State must define marriage. Obviously, this is a thorny problem for a church-less State, but we managed fairly well for almost 200 years.
Additionally, the homosexual "marriage" issue has implications far beyond legalized sodomy. For example, how can government schools legally exclude "Dick and Dick" reading books for first graders?
How can the State prohibit the adoption of children by legally "married" sodomites?
Libertarians have thrown our children to the lions by taking an agnostic position regarding marriage.
No position is a position.
I used to believe that was the reason, but not anymore.
When sodomites can legally "marry," they can legally adopt.
First graders will read "Dick and Dick" books. Who can legally stop them?
They're going after the children.
And God help the Christians who stand by and watch.
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." --Jesus
The purpose of sodomy laws isn't to put cameras in people's bedrooms. This is a silly straw man argument pushed by the Left, because they want to avoid talking about their true agenda.
The purpose of criminalizing sodomy is to provide a legal basis for prohibiting public displays of sodomy, "gay" bars, bath houses, and anything else in the public realm that encourages sodomy.
For example, with the legalization of sodomy, government school textbooks for young children can present sodomite "families" as normal and ethical. Prohibitions against the adoption of children by sodomites would have no legal basis. The implications are far-reaching.
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.