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?
This is where libertarianism veers away from conservatism.
The basic assumption difference is that conservatives view our culture as something worth preserving,
while the libertarian sees nothing special about our culture and would let it deteriorate and die.
The libertarian has a blindspot where he doesn’t see that a “moral and religious people” is NECESSARY for the liberty that he sets as the highest goal.
I agree that an amendment is needed-it is needed now, because the government already encroaches on private business bigtime, where it should not.
If I were king, the rule would be-my business, my rules, in a non-union shop. The law of profit and loss will take care of the companies who play the government’s silly games-they will raise prices to non-competetive levels to pay for the endless rules of government compliance.
I’ve been told there was a time when employers only provided benefits to a legal designee-people had to name a beneficiary for life insurance you bought at work, etc, and it could be your cat’s aunt if you wanted, because employers didn’t provide health insurance-people bought their own, which is how I think it should be again...
It’s no different from asking, “what happens if they were to suspend Habeaus Corpus.” They can’t suspend it and they can’t change the definition. They can only protect it.
Or it could just be that sanctioning marriage isn't one of the clearly defined powers granted to the fedgov in Article 1, Section 8. But far be it for me to throw that in the way of a good demonizing of libertarians.
Since removing the government from something that ends up in endless discrimination suits, I’m sure the lawyers will be needing another source of income-let them sort out the minutae of the religious marriage contracts in relation to custody, immigration, etc...
The Constitution was framed based on the assumptions of a Judeo-Christian value system,
and “it is inadequate for the governing of any other”.
Well stated, sir...
Then they should have allowed for that in Article 1, Section 8. It’s not “a living, breathing document.”
It amazes me that people who know fedgov can’t even fill pot holes properly are so eager and willing to let it micro manage the most intimate of their affairs.
spousal contracts = marriage
divorce = about marriage
marriage in not about mere religion
if you go down to your nearby staples / office depot / office max / or look online there are a plethora of “cohabitation agreements” which ARE enforcable under contract law.
civil unions = marriage
Sorry, can’t refer to the authority of the Constitution without recognizing the assumptions on which it was based and written.
Whatever. Get back to me when you find granting sanction marriage in Article 1, Section 8. It wasn’t written in pencil.
we have the marriage penalty tax when both people work.
When the husband works and the wife does not it seems to be more tax effective.
when the government defines marrige via legislative act then they are essentially taxing sex.
If tax policy is intends to influence society, then marit tax deductions are in order. We need children(future taxable asset).
Well, according to justice roberts (anyone here feel stupid for carrying water for that asshole during his confirmation?), fedgov has unlimited taxing power. Good thing we have strict constructionists like him to squeeze a convoluted excuse for raw government power from a plainly worded document that was supposed to restrict it to something less powerful than a local home owner's association.
But listen to them cry when we say we want heterosexual everything. Bunch of whiney wusses.
I actually think it would be a good thing if marriage was taken out of the tax code. If everyone was just treated an a person for taxing purposes then there really would be no push for gay marriage. They just want the perks that families get. As someone who has never married, I think it is the right thing to do. For example, I run a household, but because I am the only member of it, I cannot claim head of household. If I had an illegitimate child, why then I could claim it. Makes no sense.
Let's see allowing people into the country based on who they are married to? Yeah I am good with doing away with that one being its abused regularly.
Spousal Contracts is easy. You want to decide who gets what when someone dies its called a will, who gets the children note it in the will. easy peasy japaneezy
Divorce as far as the financial part is covered with a legal document now and still can be. In fact it should be a standard 50-50 split so the lawyers can't bleed the clients dry.
Social Security is in trouble anyway. It needs revamped and this is a good way to start. grandfather in everyone who is already getting it and from now on there are no automatic spousal goodies. a survivor can be designated but at a greatly reduced rate and keep the standard kids bennies till 18 (but I am willing to bet for SS to stay solvent this is gonna have to go too!)
I like this because it takes the wind out of the ghey liberal argument that the tax code is unfair towards ghey couples.
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.