Rand Paul: Perhaps Government Should No Longer Recognize Marriage

[DonViejo]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday finally commented on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, suggesting that the government simply stop recognizing marriage altogether.

In an op-ed published Sunday in Time Magazine, Paul acknowledged that he believes Americans have the right to enter into contracts, but he questioned whether the government should be able to define marriage.

"I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others," Paul wrote. "The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage."

"Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party," he continued. Paul referenced counties in Alabama that stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether when faced with the legalization of gay marriage in the state.

The senator and presidential candidate also vowed to protect religious liberties in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. "I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere," he wrote.

###

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-supreme-court-gay-marriage

[TreasonousBastard]

1. He's got a point, butr then loses it...

I've said for years that marriage is a social and religious institution that the state took over because it was easier than making it part of contract law.

The state shouldn't issue marriage licenses or marry people at all. It should only authorize civil unions with the legal benefits of marriage.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. You cannot even state that coherently without using the word marriage.

At this point advocating civil unions for all is as bigoted as the rest of the crap.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Slow down-- this makes no sense at all...

How is advocating universal civil unions bigoted?

Bigotry assumes someone is excluded or reduced to lower status. "Universal" means just that-- everyone is included.

Actually, it's even more inclusive because it would include those who want a legal union for such things as end-of-life decisions but are not romantically linked.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. because we now have marriage equality as a fundamental right.

Your advocacy for removing that right - for bowing to the concerns of the homophobic religious right by taking the state out of its long standing practice of licensing marriages so as to not offend these bigots - is absurd and borders on bigotry itself.

You cannot coherently state a definition of civil unions that does not use the term that is commonly used and understood for that concept: "marriage". Why change the name? Why are you advocating for a concession after we have won?

Seriously, what the flying fuck?

[TreasonousBastard]

13. That's ridiculous. Marriage may be an end in itself...

to some, but it shouldn't be the general goal. Anyone who wants to get married should be able to, but just not by the state. You're using the old meaning of "civil union" which was a separate but equal concept that was no more separate or equal than segregated water fountains. Any bigotry is alone in your mind.

Marriage, as it is now, presumes a sexual relationship, which excludes anyone who wants someone to handle what are now "administrative" tasks only available through marriage. This is a limiting concept and flies in the face of equality.

I have absolutely no interest in removing any rights, simply expanding them. I also have no interest in marrying anyone just to have someone to sign things at the hospital or who won't be asked to testify about my personal matters. Yes, I can enter into contracts and hire lawyers to deal with things, but that often complicates the problem without solving it.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. marriage as it is now is a licensed contract between two individuals

and it may also be a religious ceremony performed by religious institutions.

The state has for centuries issued marriage licenses not as a religious function but as a standard contract between individuals. Your advocacy for removing marriage equality is what is ridiculous, and in my opinion at this point in time is simply bigotry.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. And you would be wrong. But carry on.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. 14-1 says I'm right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026920306

Amazingly one other person thought it wasn't obvious bigotry.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. That means nothing, except that...

those 14 don't understand the difference between looking at the past and looking toward the future any more than you do.

If you can't understand that I am using a different definition of "civil union", there's not much I can do.

If there were another appropriate term I would have used it, but I can't think of any. And don't say "marriage" because that includes a sexual or romantic component that restricts it.

See how that works? I have no problem with you getting what you wanted, but now that you have it you don't want to expand it further for others.

How's that for bigotry?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. If you don't understand why now, after 6/26, your suggestion is insulting, I give up.

[Marrah_G]

2. he is a walking talking contradiction

[Warren Stupidity]

3. That ship sank 15 years ago.

oh and fuck off bigot, your time has past. deal with it.

[Cha]

5. Oh you and your "religious sphere" fuck off, randster.

[HassleCat]

6. Over the top, as usual

Rand Paul is not nearly as smart as his daddy. In fact, he's not as smart as the average person, In fact, he's not nearly as smart as... Well, anyway, his basic argument is OK, but he goes way too far with it. I always thought the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, since that involves the government endorsing the concept of marriage, and approving of the individual marriages for which it issues licenses. They could simply leave it to the religious organizations, and other institutions that wanted to marry people, and record the marriages that met the age requirements, and were between any two persons. Rand Paul is upset because gay marriage is now possible, so he's lashing out with one of his dumb ideas. One of his many, many, many dumb ideas, I should say.

[lame54]

7. that means no tax benefits Rand

[Betty Karlson]

9. Predictable hatred from that quarter.

Libertarianism has been reduced to "freedom to hate everyone, and may the sharpest elbows win".

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

24. I have been saying for years that the libertarian mantra is

"I've got mine, screw you!"

I've also been saying that the bases of libertarianism are greed, massive egotism, and disdain for everyone else. It requires ignorance of history, politics, economics and real world in general to maintain. As the late Iain Banks said, "Libertarianism. A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard."

[DetlefK]

11. "From this day on, all government-issued marriages carry no legal weight in the US!"

Great idea, Paul.

[alarimer]

12. I think it's merely a legal instrument containing rights and responsibilities.

I do not buy the emotional bullshit around marriage. That it means you are more "committed" than if you just live together. That somehow you are now "one" (this part actually gives me the fucking creeps- no way am I EVER giving up my individuality, even if it's only a legal fiction.) But then again, I am not a romantic. The main problem I have with marriage is that it makes it more difficult to leave a toxic relationship. I want to maintain the ability to check out easily if that ever happens. In a way, I think people who live together are MORE committed, not less, because they could leave whenever they want to; they are not forced to stay by some piece of paper.

But I think gay people need to have that legal right nationwide. It protects them if they move from one state to another. The deserve equal protection under the law (in all things, not just marriage).

[GeorgeGist]

14. The brat speaks.

[blackspade]

17. What an idiot.

Marriage has always been a legal contract, and therefore something for governments to oversee.

[former9thward]

21. No it hasn't.

Government did not begin to issue licenses until the 1500s under pressure from the Catholic Church. Prior to that it was an individual matter.

[blackspade]

23. You are being too literal.

Marriage from its inception is a legal contract between two families that is overseen by some sort of governing body, from a group of elders to the court clerk.

[Contrary1]

22. Probably wants it out of government control so that churches can set the rules...

but only the real churches, i.e., Christian.