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?
Replies 8 and 9.
You both make good arguments. Get the government out of marriage.
The queers won’t like it because it takes away one of their most powerful pulpits, but I don’t care. The government is spending way too much time and our tax dollars on something that fundamentally is none of their business.
Tired but true: you can’t legislate morality.
Yes... that's a BIG reason as well. All part of the same.
- We used to marry women from other countries without interference.
- We used to have only assets people had as money to be shared with a spouse.
- We used to hold the parents on a birth record as the legal guardians (and sole providers—NOT government) until some legal situation changed that (such as death of parents).
Your points do not prove why it's wrong for government to get out of marriage. Your arguments prove why government should get out of even more pervasive matters.
It’s too late to privatize marriage. The state has utterly taken it over, and the results are much the same as with everything else the state takes over. Rand Paul is naive to think that his proposal will in any way protect traditional marriage. It might take away one small, technical argument the gay marriage proponents use, but it won’t even slow them down.
I cringe at weddings when the priest/minister says “by the power vested in me by the state of _______”. We’ve been sitting there in a church, hearing about God’s idea of marriage for an hour or so, and suddenly, the state shows up out of nowhere. Who invited them? Oh well, it’s too late to kick them out. They crashed the wedding.
Libertarian alert.
Rand is a rational man who doesn’t get how fanatics think. The gay activists are fanatics. They are on a vendetta against society, the church and God. They do not even know what they want or else they would not go to bath houses and do the things they do which are dangerous to their own lives. When people’s obsessions supersede their survival instinct, they should definately not be leading the parade of social change. Many homosexual activists are very bright and glib, they are very good at rationalizing their insanity and that is very dangerous not just for them but for society as a whole.
When they invade churches during religious services they are declaring war on the churches. These are not nice people and they do not want to go half way. They want it all. They are mad, sick people who want to control society. The more power they get by weak people giving in to them the worst they get. They are very much like spoiled children who become more irrational the more their parents give in to them.
In short: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
No we do not and the government should not be allowed to do so either...it is not their business, period.
Well I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. People will get confused.
But yes the federal government should not be involved with marriage. They should not have any powers as not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
"Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people".
Libertarians use economic policy to divide themselves from fellow Liberals, but when they destroy civilized society with homosexual marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, etc - you can believe they will be demanding cash and programs from the government (which, after the collapse will be a communist dictatorship).
Just wait 'til the bi-sexuals each want to marry a man and a woman.
Marriage is included in the tax code because it is beneficial to the country. GAMILY is the core of any great nation. Destroy it, and you destroy the country....which is why liberals are hell bent on perverting it, encouraging sexual temptation in marriage and destroying our children’s chances of having successful marriages by sexualizing them so young. I wish that before republicans jump on a liberal bandwagon and attempt to throw stuff out, that they would consider why it was established that way to begin with.
I think it is very hard to pick a pol to support unless you view like an ala carte menu. With Rand, it may be that he has a few ideas I support, but he may well come out with a bunch of ideas I cannot abide. For me, I then have to determine if the pol supports some issue that will I WILL not, CANNOT abide.
Right now, I am not convinced I would support Rand for any higher office. Luckily, there is lots of time before I need to throw my support to any ONE pol.
The government won’t get out of the marriage business because then it couldn’t stick it to middle income Social Security recipients. Back in 1983, the Republicans (Reagan Admin) and Democrats agreed to tax Social Security income for the first time. A complex calculation was created to see who would have to pay tax on their SS and it included a $25,000 deduction for a single person, and $32,000 for married people. This figure has never been adjusted for inflation after 30 years.
If adjusted the figures would be around $58,000 and $74,000. I know retirees with modest income above their SS who don’t feel they can afford to get married because of that $32,000 limit. Thus they stay single so they can each deduct $25,000. Of course if there was an inflation fix, then a lot of them could afford to get married, instead of living in tax code promoted “sin.”
In a number of states there are humanist celebrants licensed to perform marriages, birth ceremonies, etc. of a non religious nature for humanists, atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, etc.
That second sentence may be true under some strained and highly unusual definition of "public" - but that definition clearly has no legitimate bearing on privacy rights.
because they tend to go into the entertainment industry
Don’t forget that the leftist animals believe that all humans are PROPERTY OF THE STATE.
They believe that you aren’t married until it goes into a government file and any children added to the file are cattle.
Give them 20-50 more years and government will have the RIGHT to KILL anyone who violates the paper contract and kill any child caught being raised by a non-authorized guardian.
It’s going to happen because the enemy knows that many are soft and helpless.
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.