Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code

posted at 1:21 pm on March 13, 2013 by Allahpundit

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 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?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

You know, I don’t mind that AP holds a position opposite from mine on SSM and that he posts accordingly. But I do mind that the only stories that Hot Air seems to find worth their notice on the subject are on the same side as APs. It’s not my blog to say which articles should be posted, but is Hot Air being well-served by shutting out positions you don’t agree with?

Socratease on March 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM

social cons laughed at libertarians

Mocked, derided and insulted. Happens all the time because social cons don’t think things through.

John the Libertarian on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Scott:

We have tried the experiment of privately arrangements. It’s called the ghetto. How’s that working out for you?

But I digress. I ask of you the same question as doomberg. If the “parties” to the private arrangement have a disagreement about distribution of property or support of any offspring if the arrangement is terminated who will it be adjudicate it?

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

ALLAH

We are not Rome.

The biggest mistake the right makes – the socons mainly – is not using the precedent cases for separation of church/state to our advantage.

If a cross on a community flag or roadside is a violation how is it not a violation for the State to hand out licenses bearing the name of a sacrament?

Marriage is a sacrament.

and DOMA is the use of Big Govt to discriminate.

Drop DOMA and drop the word “Marriage” from the State lexicon. Civil Unions for all couples, hetero or homo. Then, if a church wants to perform ghey mirage, let them. Let all gay couples become Unitarians. I could care less.

What it does, is create equality for all people and the right to pursue happiness.

If happiness really is based on your connection to Christ, then your concern should be about protecting that relationship from interference from the State.

But instead, we have a group of savants who are going to make anti-SSM arguments before the court and get their asses kicked.

Then, we’ll have SSM in all fifty states followed by discrimination lawsuits against private practices and religious orgs, within months.

So you’ve got a choice. Separate Church/State or accept SSM. That’s it. The days of using Big Govt as a societal hammer are gone.

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

They won’t buy it … SoCons NEED validation of their sacraments from the State because they really, deep-down, don’t believe their sacraments come from God. If they really believed that God had sactified marriage as an institute between man and woman – then they’d care less what the State actually said about that.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Bull. If the state said tomorrow that murder was alright, socons would still be concerned about it – not because they really, deep-down don’t believe that anti-murder didn’t come from God and therefore need the state to validate it – but because they *do* believe it is from God, and are alarmed if the state takes a position that’s diametrically opposed.

Get a grip, Obamaphile.

Midas on March 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Mocked, derided and insulted.

John the Libertarian on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

That’ll happen when you’re ignorant, shortsighted, and willful simpletons.

You may not give a fart in a bucket about churches and religious individuals being forced to serve pervert couples or face persection, but guess what skippy, we have to be. It’s already happening up north and it’s starting to happen in the USA.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Outstanding post! Spot on!

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Socratease on March 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM

he does it for the hit count.

And, because he might be gay.

I never bought the KPowers crush.

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

People would be free to form partnerships and families on their own, but would presumably be required to manage money and assets and such on an individual basis. The only real laws that would be required would be the disposition of a child in the event of the death of the parents or divorce.

Doomberg on March 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Any idea of the impact of that? What about joint bank accounts? Primarily they are legally based on marriage and family relationships (or incorporation). If you eliminate that, then there is (under privacy laws) no way for a husband to view his wife’s bank account information – which means he can’t pay the bills out of her account or vice versa. It also means that you have to go through probate to get at that money if one of them dies. You complicate the managing of funds as a family greatly if you remove that.

Yes, you could simply make them incorporate. What a joy that would be…. *eyeroll*

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Scott:

We have tried the experiment of privately arrangements. It’s called the ghetto. How’s that working out for you?

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Zing!

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Honda:

Then the state is still involved and it’s a more complex relationship than it was before. Perhaps you should think about things before you provide you elegant answer.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

The days of using Big Govt as a societal hammer are gone.

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

ROTFLOL! Tell that to the gayfia or even liberals in general, genius!

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Bull. If the state said tomorrow that murder was alright, socons would still be concerned about it – not because they really, deep-down don’t believe that anti-murder didn’t come from God and therefore need the state to validate it – but because they *do* believe it is from God, and are alarmed if the state takes a position that’s diametrically opposed.

Get a grip, Obamaphile.

Midas on March 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Oh yes – because GAY MARRIAGE is the equivalent of MURDER.

You are a prime example of why you SoCons are such retarded idiots.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The Left will never go along with the idea of getting marriage out of the tax code. First, that would remove in one fell swoop one of their premier arguments for SSM. Second, the fairest solution would be a flat tax, which liberals would never allow. Without a graduated income tax, there is no way to punish success and win votes by using class warfare.

Liam on March 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM

There is SSM and there is the legal recognition of it. A gay couple just have to find a gay friendly church or synagogue, which is easy, and they can be married. Except for social con extremists, people will call them married. The social war is being won this way. The legal recognition is just the victory statement.

thuja on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Incidentally, The Public Discourse has some of the very best articles on the marriage issue:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/category/marriage/

Including an excellent series on why marriage cannot be “privatized”:

Privatizing Marriage is Impossible
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/

Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/

Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/

J. Max Wilson on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

You are a prime example of why you SoCons are such retarded idiots.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

You are a prime example of why liberalism is a mental disorder.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

The best way to get marriage out of the tax code is to replace it with a national sales tax. Not only will it eliminate social engineering, it will end the influence of other special interest groups and cronies as well, and a national sales tax would also make illegal aliens pay their fair share of taxes, too.

Scrapping the corrupt federal tax code and replacing it with a national sales tax would benefit the overwhelming majority of the American people and eliminate a lot of corruption and waste at the same time.

FloatingRock on March 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

And the point you’re helping make is that what they say they want and what they want aren’t the same.

Midas on March 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I came to the conclusion quite awhile ago that the SSM issue is not really about marriage at all.

It is about state recognition and ultimately the creation of another class of people the state affords special protections against discrimination.

It is also a tool the Dems, the MSM, lefties, libs, and Hollywood use for at least two purposes: 1) to drive a wedge between those on the right and 2) to drive the young, dumb, and naive away from the GOP in their early voting years by painting it as “intolerant”.

farsighted on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The best way to get marriage out of the tax code is to replace it with a national sales tax.

FloatingRock on March 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I used to be for the Fairtax, but I’d support this in a heartbeat.

Taxing income is so stupid it took liberals to implement it.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Honda:

Then the state is still involved and it’s a more complex relationship than it was before. Perhaps you should think about things before you provide you elegant answer.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

No it’s not.

State enforces contract law all the time. That’s what the courts do bro.

Make all “marriages” a “contract” in the eyes of the state. You can put whatever stipulations you want in that contract as long as you’re willing to uphold them.

If you want to be MARRIED – then, concurrent with that – you go to a church and get married. You would also go back to the church to have your marriage dissolved – instead of the state – who could only arbitrate the contract, not dissolve the volutary marriage assosiciation aspect.

It’s simple.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

My wife and were recognized by the state as a married couple three months before our wedding day. This was to ascertain a certain status in order to obtain certain benefits for the military i.e. moving etc. Never did we consider ourselves married prior to the day we stood before God and committed ourselves to each other.

I support traditional marriage, however if two guys want to call themselves married that is fine by me, but it won’t make it so. I’m with Rand on this. Get government out of the marriage business. Marriage will then be be just as important to the people it would have otherwise would have been and cease to be important to the people looking for “equality.”

Meat Fighter on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Claiming that the word “marriage” is wholly owned and copyrighted by religion is patently ridiculous…as is getting one’s feathers ruffled over “redefinition” of that word. To the religious, “marriage” may really seem like more than just a word, it’s a concept, and I get that. Yet it isn’t about protecting that concept…it’s about legislating it away from others…kind of a “keep your filthy hands off our concept”.

Tiffany’s is a brand, a “concept” if you will and they got pretty pissed when Costco tried to hijack their “concept”. And there are laws protecting their “concept”.

If you are a young guy then you know the band Muse. They ruffled Celine Dion’s feathers, sued, and got her not to use the word “Muse” in her Vegas show.

Nothing about religion here. It’s about protecting brand identity and “marriage” is a heterosexual brand.

monalisa on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Mocked, derided and insulted. Happens all the time because social cons don’t think things through.

John the Libertarian on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Yeah because libertarians ALWAYS think things through.. Tell me again how you guys always factor in liberals and their penchant to make us pay for the consequences of your political positions in.. Or do you gloss over that part and think that will take care of itself eventually?

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

O/T, This is just on Drudge. See what bho/team have planned now for banking our banking accounts!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-us-to-let-spy-agencies-scour-americans-finances-20130313,0,2719682.story
L

letget on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

You are a prime example of why liberalism is a mental disorder.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Except that I’m not a liberal by any stretch of the word. I voted for Obama to collapse a system that the GOP refuses to save. Give me the apocolypse now – I’m only 51 and I’d rather deal with it now than when I’m 80!

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Nothing about religion here. It’s about protecting brand identity and “marriage” is a heterosexual brand.

monalisa on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

You know, you are I think only the second person I have ever seen in my life to argue for traditional marriage with that line of defense. The other one was a right-wing cartoonist who said “We will protect a corporation’s legal right to a drawing of a cartoon mouse; can we at LEAST protect the compact between woman and man…”

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I support traditional marriage, however if two guys want to call themselves married that is fine by me, but it won’t make it so. I’m with Rand on this. Get government out of the marriage business. Marriage will then be be just as important to the people it would have otherwise would have been and cease to be important to the people looking for “equality.”

Meat Fighter on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Right on bro!!!

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I came to the conclusion quite awhile ago that the SSM issue is not really about marriage at all.

It is about state recognition and ultimately the creation of another class of people the state affords special protections against discrimination.

It is also a tool the Dems, the MSM, lefties, libs, and Hollywood use for at least two purposes: 1) to drive a wedge between those on the right and 2) to drive the young, dumb, and naive away from the GOP in their early voting years by painting it as “intolerant”.

farsighted on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Exactly! And when we try to stop those anti-discrimination laws which are coming whether we get out of the marriage business or not, the right will still be tarred with the homophobic card. And the same people rolling over for SSM so they are “tolerant” will roll over for those laws as well.

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code

…government won’t let that happen…they don’t take anything out…once they STICK IT IN!

KOOLAID2 on March 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that the primary reason people get married is for tax deductions?

No. No more than the “primary reason” people get divorced is because no-fault made it easy. See there’s this concept called a “contributing factor” which doesn’t apply as much to individual cases, yet has a significant impact to statistical RATES.

Sure, there may be incredibly wealthy people who may no longer see a need to get married, but 99% of this country isn’t going to say, ‘Ohh no, we can’t file our taxes jointly, guess there’s no point in getting married, sweetheart.’

In your smarmyness, you failed to distinguish between getting married, and getting a marriage LICENSE. See, if you can get married in a ceremony, but all registering it with the state does is make you liable alimony and half-your-stuff, you WILL see more people saying “guess there’s no point in getting our marriage registered with the state, sweetheart.”

That’s all it takes to further denormalize marriage. Reagan said when you subsidize something, you get more of it… what do you think happens when you remove a subsidy? It’s no great leap of logic to see that dropping rates of marriage licensing would create a cultural trend that would lead to dropping rates of marriage in general. Which leads to crime, poverty, dependency, and evermore big government “solutions.” Then you can kiss your limited constitutional republic goodbye.

I consider myself to be conservative on social matters.

Could have fooled us…

But jamming our values down people’s throats and then refusing to interact with them isn’t any better than the Pharisees Christ railed against.

What? No maundering Non-Sequiturs please. We’re not forcing anyone to get married. We’re not mandating married couples pop out 2.5 kids. We’re not even mandating the INTENT to have kids! Marriage licensing isn’t about “morality,” It’s about protecting the most vulnerable citizens, children, by improving the odds they are born into a stable married family, which directly indicate whether they will become upstanding productive members of society… without which, there is no society.

Want to change society? Impact them on an individual and community basis and truly change their worldview from the bottom up. Simply legislating morality is lazy and only resulting in great animosity to our message.

Oh Noes! Animosity and Hurt feelings! We should definitely not legislate morality like freeing slaves! We should have just let it ride until every slave owner had their worldview changed from the bottom up! That Lincoln sure was lazy! Are you serious? I guess I’m just not hip to the whole moral-relativism argument…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Taxing income is so stupid it took liberals to implement it.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Income tax was put to the states for ratification by the Republican party in 1909 I think it was…

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Honda:

Your knowledge of the legal system seems to be deficient. While some civil cases get wrapped up pretty quick others go on along time. The judge’s decision is subject to appeal. A civil case gat even go all the way to SCOTUS. The decision of the family court judge is final.

Wait a minute. Maybe you’re a lawyer who drooling at the prospect of contract marriage. You make money at either end of the deal.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Marriage licensing isn’t about “morality,” It’s about protecting the most vulnerable citizens, children, by improving the odds they are born into a stable married family, which directly indicate whether they will become upstanding productive members of society… without which, there is no society.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Heh, yeah – how’s that workin’ out for ya? LOL

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Removing one of the few last incentives for marriage and family would further destroy marriage rates…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Isn’t there currently a tax penalty for being married?

itsnotaboutme on March 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I think it is more of a cheat than a penalty.

Example:

Man and woman are married with two children living together in a $150,000.00 house. The woman brings in $20,000.00 and year and the man brings in $50,000.00 a year. Neither rates the EIC, because legally, they are married even if they file separately. Therefore, they file together to get the minimum tax payment.

Same situation, except the couple is not married. They both file separately, however the woman claims EIC and gets back an extra $7,000.00 of income redistribution plus she also files for state help and food stamps. The kids get college perferences and can get more government assistance for college.

The married couple would be better off to get a divorce and just live together. The woman claims the kids and uses her income for all government assistance. Therefore, their final disposable yearly income probably exceeds $90,000.00 and the married couple income with taxes taken out etc has a yearly disposable income of $60,000.00.

PrettyD_Vicious on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

You know, I don’t mind that AP holds a position opposite from mine on SSM and that he posts accordingly. But I do mind that the only stories that Hot Air seems to find worth their notice on the subject are on the same side as APs. It’s not my blog to say which articles should be posted, but is Hot Air being well-served by shutting out positions you don’t agree with?

Socratease on March 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I’m not shutting out anyone. Do you seriously think I have the authority to tell Ed, Erika, and MKH that they can’t post in favor of traditional marriage? I give my perspective; they’re free to give theirs if they want; you’re free to disagree with any or all of us.

Allahpundit on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I’m a social conservative, and I’m willing to concede some ground on ssm, provided that we get government out of marriage AND ssc cease suing churches and businesses for lack of recognition.

nobar on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Wait a minute. Maybe you’re a lawyer who drooling at the prospect of contract marriage. You make money at either end of the deal.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Nope – but I think you’re exaggerating the number of contract law cases that take forever to “wrap up”.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Ahh Allah… Revising history again…

The social conservatives (myself included) are still anti gay marriage but were almost all in support of CIVIL UNIONS. Marriage is marriage – a man and a woman coming together under God for the intent of procreation. That’s why God made them as two distinct sexes a male as female.

But people also have the right to live as they want so most cons were amicable to CIVIL UNIONS.

The Gay Lobby however was not – deriding that until they could unite under the same religious definition that they weren’t equal.

Well if WE are going to redefine marriage (and that’s what this is) then let’s be progressive about it and lay a new foundation for the future… Either the government is open and progressive and recognizes all possible relationships by consenting adults in the tax code or it recognizes none.

As a socon I prefer NONE. Because I think that’s protects the rights and liberties of all parties involved. Churches remain free to marry whom they wish in accordance with their God and people can cohabit are as they wish.

But, once again… Pro-Gay marriage advocates (like yourself) pooh-pooh that as destruction of the institution of marriage. O’RLY? Which begs the question – are Pro-Gay marriage advocates really arguing for greater rights or are they just pushing the kool-aid philosophy du jour?

Skywise on March 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Simply legislating morality is lazy and only resulting in great animosity to our message.

Hostile Gospel on March 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM

All criminal and most civil laws are “legislating morality”. By definition, if you make some things legal and others not, you are declaring them “right” and “wrong” – which is a moral issue.

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

This discussion isn’t complete without: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8&t=0m15s

ProfShadow on March 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM

I’m a social conservative, and I’m willing to concede some ground on ssm, provided that we get government out of marriage AND ssc cease suing churches and businesses for lack of recognition.

nobar on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The problem is that the leftist gays will never concede either. I would concede all of that as well. Leftist Gays don’t want that though. They want marriage and a bat to beat you over the head with.

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM

O/T, This is just on Drudge. See what bho/team have planned now for banking our banking accounts!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-us-to-let-spy-agencies-scour-americans-finances-20130313,0,2719682.story
L

letget on March 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Yep, they’ll go after the American people and violate their rights and prosecute if their witch-hunt turns anything up, but if they find a bank that launders billions for drug gangs and terrorists they’ll do nothing, calling them them ‘too big to fail’. The cronies at the top are safe from the corrupt US government, it’s only the little people who have anything to fear.

FloatingRock on March 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM

All criminal and most civil laws are “legislating morality”. By definition, if you make some things legal and others not, you are declaring them “right” and “wrong” – which is a moral issue.

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Exactly. Contrary to the bilge spewed by liberals, Darwinists, and other idiots, values of right and wrong either have to have some foundation in divine basis or you have a nation that is not unlike a skyscraper built of balsa wood on a foundation of Jello.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Mocked, derided and insulted. Happens all the time because social cons don’t think things through.

John the Libertarian on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Oh the irony. Not surprising coming from a fake Libertarian like yourself.

Daemonocracy on March 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM

And in the tax code, will we see the mother of all marriage penalties? Will being a stay-at-home mom become the exclusive province of the well-off?

bophame on March 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Then you can kiss your limited constitutional republic goodbye.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Sorry, but that’s water under the bridge. As the lyrics to Clementine say (not the nice one you learned as a kid):
Hey, I’m no swimm’a but were she slimm’a
I might’a saved that Clementine republic mine.

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I’m always left dumbfounded by this kind of thing. “Marriage” began as being implemented by the state a long time ago. It was later adopted by various religions. And I’m well aware, as a Catholic myself, that marriage is one of the seven sacraments. And that’s all well and good.

But the gay marriage idea is not…repeat, not…about religion. It’s about, as stated above, constitutionality. Regardless of the string of strawmen that always pop up in these threads about some bigger, dark agenda to destroy Christianity or something.

Claiming that the word “marriage” is wholly owned and copyrighted by religion is patently ridiculous…as is getting one’s feathers ruffled over “redefinition” of that word. To the religious, “marriage” may really seem like more than just a word, it’s a concept, and I get that. Yet it isn’t about protecting that concept…it’s about legislating it away from others…kind of a “keep your filthy hands off our concept”.

Thing is, state-sponsored privileges and perks for married couples, I consider entitlements. And we all know full well, once those entitlements are given, it’s near impossible to revoke them. Getting the state out of marriage is a fine concept…but IMO it’s very, very unlikely to be brought to fruition.

JetBoy on March 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

And here lies exactly why supporters of SSM do not want Rand’s argument to take hold.

Jet – Pre-Christian religions either sold women or had state-sponsored religions involved. Even the Romans had sacrificial animals to Zeus and whoever alongside endowments. The hybrid marriage we have today comes from some law established in 1500′s Geneva, where after sacramental rites, couples had to file locally.

Secular “marriage” is a new concept.

I agree that SoCons have used DOMA and other methods to hammer parts of society they don’t like but to deny LGB groups are not going to go after religious/private orgs for Discrimination is either self-delusional or something you’re fine with. The way you claim Catholicism and then dimiss a sacrament, makes me feel it’s the latter.

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I support the institution of marriage, but I do feel that getting the government out of the marriage business would be prudent.

Originally, I think the preferential treatment that marriage was given was intended to promote an institution that was good for society. But I’m not sure that’s still the case. People get married for the television, or for the wedding gifts, and not to raise a stable family.

If government no longer gave advantages to married couples, then the gay marriage issue wouldn’t be nearly as acrimonius, and civil unions would probably gain acceptance as an alternative to traditional marriage.

hawksruleva on March 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Marriage is not about sex, it is about children. The last time I checked, gay sex does not create children. The tax code should only be concerned with income and dependents, not about forcing social change. Many things need to be changed (including an amendment to the US Constitution) to change a system that has developed over thousands of years.
The Constitution of the United States:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of Nobility.

Removing the words we don’t care about:

No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

growl on March 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Midas on March 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

.
Oh yes – because GAY MARRIAGE is the equivalent of MURDER.

You are a prime example of why you SoCons are such retarded idiots.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

.
Okay, let’s keep it simple ….. Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, valid, “alternate state of normality”.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that homosexuality IS abnormal, and that stating “homosexuality IS abnormal” does NOT constitute “hate” towards homosexuals.

listens2glenn on March 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Honda:

Ok, my first guess is the best guess. You also might want to look at the backlog of civil cases. It isn’t like Boston legal where you go to court days after filing the suit. Marriage contract cases become just another civil proceeding. The delays can be immense. And then there is the appeal process if someone doesn’t like the trial court outcome. That would never happens in divorce case now does it? Oh, I forgot civil cases are jury trials. Won’t that be fun.

Here is the bottom line. You and the other idiot Libertarians are engaged in the same style of magical thinking that is found on the Progressive side. You have no idea what you would let loose in the land. But I guess we will have to change marriage law to find out what’s in it.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Rules to be granted a marriage license in Illinois prior to “civil union” creation:

1) one man and one woman
2) both be 18 or older (or have guardian consent)
3) neither be closely related by blood (at least 2nd cousins)
4) neither be currently married

Now, we have:

1) one man and one woman
2) both be 18 or older (or have guardian consent)
3) neither be closely related by blood (at least 2nd cousins)
4) neither be currently married

So, homophile activists, why aren’t you agitating for removal of the other 3 rules too?

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I’m a social conservative, and I’m willing to concede some ground on ssm, provided that we get government out of marriage AND ssc cease suing churches and businesses for lack of recognition.

nobar on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

You know what churches dig in on the issue of using the State to define marriage?

Because once you de-couple the two, then they can’t justify all the tax breaks.

budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

You know, you are I think only the second person I have ever seen in my life to argue for traditional marriage with that line of defense. The other one was a right-wing cartoonist who said “We will protect a corporation’s legal right to a drawing of a cartoon mouse; can we at LEAST protect the compact between woman and man…”

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I think we need to appeal to non-religious and this line of argument appeals to all people, especially young people who are so brand conscious. If you allow a copycat brand to proliferate, your brand is diminished. This is luxury brand marketing 101.

I think many gays, especially those working in fashion, luxury goods etc. can understand this.

monalisa on March 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

It is the disincentive toward marriage that the welfare state encouraged that led to the increase in single parent households and high crime. Saying people will not get married causing chaos in society because gay marriage is legal is the same as saying that we will all smoke dope if drugs are legalized.

I think it’s funny how people make up the argument they want to see and argue against THAT. Did I say “people will not get married causing chaos in society because gay marriage is legal”? Or did I say that removing incentives to get marriage licenses will lead to less marriages?

ALL people will smoke dope? Did I say ALL marriages will cease? No, I think you’ll find that legalizing drugs will increase the number who smoke dope and if you can’t see that, you’re already smoking it. But the main takeaway from this is that you fail at analogies.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to incentivize marriage?

That would be that whole pesky “General Welfare” clause before the liberals mangled all meaning out of it.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I’m a social conservative, and I’m willing to concede some ground on ssm

I’m not. “Gay” marriage wasn’t even acceptable to the Greeks and Romans–societies far more permissive and decadent than ours.

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Oh yes – because GAY MARRIAGE is the equivalent of MURDER.

You are a prime example of why you SoCons are such retarded idiots.

HondaV65 on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Maybe it’s worse. God called homosexuality an abomination; no such description for murder.

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to incentivize marriage?

That would be that whole pesky “General Welfare” clause before the liberals mangled all meaning out of it.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM

If our tax system worked as it did early on, we wouldn’t have the marriage incentive, because we wouldn’t have taxes ever year. Yearly income taxes are a relatively recent invention. Before that, government got by on other revenue streams, and sometimes imposed an income tax to pay down a specific debt.

I think a radical simplification of the tax code, which would include the removal of the marriage incentive, would be a good thing.

hawksruleva on March 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Maybe it’s worse. God called homosexuality an abomination; no such description for murder.

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

And yet we’re dubbed ‘bigots’ and worse by Obamabots for objecting to something the creator of the universe says he HATES. Might as well insult a cop who stops your car and tells you to go home because the locals are a bunch of poverty-pimp barbarians and you may as well have a bullseye on your back.

I think we need to appeal to non-religious and this line of argument appeals to all people, especially young people who are so brand conscious.

monalisa on March 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Absolutely. It pains me to say this, but since our nation is no longer a center-right nation and we don’t care a whit about our religious base, it is at least time to make GOOD non-religious arguments.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I am a fiscal conservative and I totally think we should be paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill in holes!

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I am a fiscal conservative and I totally think we should be paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill in holes!

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

So long as they involve a liberal being thrown in between those two stages, I’d heartily agree with you!

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

There is absolutely NO REASON for the government to be in the marriage business. NONE.

The old argument of the state supporting the foundation of building a family for the benefit of the government just doesn’t hold water any longer. More and more children are being born to unwed mothers. This isn’t the 1800′s where the very thought of having a child out of wedlock would keep someone from doing something stupid.

Very few people give it a second thought now.

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I am a fiscal conservative and I totally think we should be paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill in holes!

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I am a straight up conservative and I just want to stop paying for $hi&. :)

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM

hawksruleva on March 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM

My tax change would be so simple a 2nd grader could figure it out at the federal level.
Nation’s Spending / Number of Adults = each individual’s tax for the year. Sure, this would $16,000 this year, but just think how fast it would drop to around $4,000 a year.

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Back then they did not have welfare. Now we do.

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

So long as they involve a liberal being thrown in between those two stages, I’d heartily agree with you!

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I was just playing on the social conservative guy above who said he was a social con, but then said he would totally cave on SSM.

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

There is absolutely NO REASON for the government to be in the marriage business. NONE.

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Says the 50-something nomad-warrior planning to marry a 6 year old.

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Butterfly, it’s better to be vaguely right then precisely wrong.

Your observation about the current state of marriage if not precisely wrong it is missing something. Having abolished marriage in the nation’s inner cities we have create the kind of social chaos that begets the violent crime and murder that plagues America’s inner cities.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM

And the Mighty Rand 2012 juggernaut has already met a sizable roadblock…

thebrokenrattle on March 13, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I was just playing on the social conservative guy above who said he was a social con, but then said he would totally cave on SSM.
astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I did not say I would totally cave. What I demanded was that the gays would stop being belligerent about recognition. They don’t even care about anything else, it’s all about silencing Christian opposition. Take the teeth out of their bite.

nobar on March 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

If our tax system worked as it did early on, we wouldn’t have the marriage incentive, because we wouldn’t have taxes ever year. Yearly income taxes are a relatively recent invention. Before that, government got by on other revenue streams, and sometimes imposed an income tax to pay down a specific debt.

I think a radical simplification of the tax code, which would include the removal of the marriage incentive, would be a good thing.

I do respect your opinion though I disagree with it…
Keep in mind I was responding to your question about constitutional authority for incentivizing marriage in general, not specifically these tax statutes. There were and are other non-tax ways to incentivize which would be perfectly constitutional under the same clause. Of course even if that were not the case, it pains me to point out that looking narrowly at the tax statutes, according to Justice Roberts and the usual liberal SCOTUS clowns, the “tax power” is now an excuse to authorize even the most abhorrently oppressive programs…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:19 PM

ALLAH

We are not Rome.
The biggest mistake the right makes – the socons mainly – is not using the precedent cases for separation of church/state to our advantage.
If a cross on a community flag or roadside is a violation how is it not a violation for the State to hand out licenses bearing the name of a sacrament?
Marriage is a sacrament.
and DOMA is the use of Big Govt to discriminate.
Drop DOMA and drop the word “Marriage” from the State lexicon. Civil Unions for all couples, hetero or homo. Then, if a church wants to perform ghey mirage, let them. Let all gay couples become Unitarians. I could care less.
What it does, is create equality for all people and the right to pursue happiness.
If happiness really is based on your connection to Christ, then your concern should be about protecting that relationship from interference from the State.
But instead, we have a group of savants who are going to make anti-SSM arguments before the court and get their asses kicked.
Then, we’ll have SSM in all fifty states followed by discrimination lawsuits against private practices and religious orgs, within months.
So you’ve got a choice. Separate Church/State or accept SSM. That’s it. The days of using Big Govt as a societal hammer are gone.
budfox on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

The problem is that the gay mafia isn’t really after making churches perform marriages for gay couples – it’s getting them officially labelled as hate groups and pushing them out of the public square.

gwelf on March 13, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Taxing income individuals at the national level is so stupid it took liberals to implement it.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

FIFY

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I was just playing on the social conservative guy above who said he was a social con, but then said he would totally cave on SSM.

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

The funny thing is is that this whole gay marriage issue is the leftist getting the Republicans to do EXACTLY what they want them to do– Move left, so that they can move even more left. And the middle moves even farther left. Progressives never stop progressing. Eventually Republicans will have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Gays rights will become transgender rights will become polygamists rights will become pedophile rights etc. And they will use the same tactics on each to pull Republicans to the left. THey have done it with social and fiscal issues and it is working.

As we continue to lose our identity as a party because we have to evolve, Dems are laughing at us.

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

FIFY

GWB on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I stand corrected.

MelonCollie on March 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

This year is the 100th anniversary of the United States Income Tax. The original tax fowm was three pages long with one page of instructions. Currently what we have is a nightmare of a tax code that no one fully understands.

SC.Charlie on March 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM

This year is the 100th anniversary of the United States Income Tax. The original tax fowm was three pages long with one page of instructions. Currently what we have is a nightmare of a tax code that no one fully understands.

SC.Charlie on March 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Did you see the picture of Obamacare regulations that Mitch McConnell tweeted?

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/12/whoa-sen-mcconnell-tweets-shocking-photo-of-the-20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations/

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Why has the outcome of the lives of children been taken out of Marriage? I argue because Social Security and Medicare remove the chain of responsibility from the equation.
Now you can live off the labor of other people’s children, so the welfare of children has been reduced significantly. Now, with 15.2% of your income going to support old people, you do not have that 15.2% left over to raise children and help your own parents as you could before.
Government has so reduced the ability of a worker to earn enough for a family, most have two working parents. This leaves little time for making babies, raising babies and spending the time ensuring children get a quality education. Government does this through regulation and taxes both on the individual and on their labor through the company they work for.

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Says the 50-something nomad-warrior planning to marry a 6 year old.

Nutstuyu on March 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Don’t be ridiculous. Contracts are contracts. Both parties must have the legal ability to enter into a contract.

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM

There is absolutely NO REASON for the government to be in the marriage business. NONE.

The old argument of the state supporting the foundation of building a family for the benefit of the government just doesn’t hold water any longer. More and more children are being born to unwed mothers. This isn’t the 1800′s where the very thought of having a child out of wedlock would keep someone from doing something stupid.

Very few people give it a second thought now.

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

And obviously the solution to this creep of decay is to surrender entirely???

Did you know that over 70% of prison inmates were born to single mothers? Did you know that, when controlling for single motherhood, the variation in incarceration rate, education level, and poverty level between blacks and whites DISAPPEARS? Or are these NO REASON to concern oneself with encouraging marriage? No water in that silly old “family” notion… tra-la-la… gee, this used to be such a nice neighborhood, I wonder what happened? Just something to think about…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Did you see the picture of Obamacare regulations that Mitch McConnell tweeted?

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/12/whoa-sen-mcconnell-tweets-shocking-photo-of-the-20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations/

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I’ve already had to increase my blood pressure and depression medication since the reelection of Obama. Obama has been reelected, forests of trees will die to provide the paper for the newly hired bureaucrats to process.

SC.Charlie on March 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM

astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM

THIS! +100

I would just add that’s not a bug of Progressive Statism, but a “feature”

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Another precisely wrong statement from the butterfly. The 6 year old’s legal guardian can sign for her. Under current law that is entirely permissible. So are you going to prohibit a legal guardian from signing a contract in the 6 year old’s name? Wouldn’t that be getting the state back into the bedroom?

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 3:37 PM

I’m liking Rand more and more each day. It’s refreshing to listen to someone that has an obvious core of beliefs and is willing to speak up regardless of any blowback.

RedInMD on March 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Excellent!

Panther on March 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Your observation about the current state of marriage if not precisely wrong it is missing something. Having abolished marriage in the nation’s inner cities we have create the kind of social chaos that begets the violent crime and murder that plagues America’s inner cities.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM

While I agree that our societal ills can be pinned to the breakdown of the family unit, no one “abolished” marriage. People have chose their path. Or are you suggesting we make marriage a requirement ala the Commerce Clause?

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

The funny thing is is that this whole gay marriage issue is the leftist getting the Republicans to do EXACTLY what they want them to do– Move left, so that they can move even more left. And the middle moves even farther left. Progressives never stop progressing. Eventually Republicans will have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Gays rights will become transgender rights will become polygamists rights will become pedophile rights etc.

And they will use the same tactics on each to pull Republicans to the left. THey have done it with social and fiscal issues and it is working.

As we continue to lose our identity as a party because we have to evolve, Dems are laughing at us.

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Appeal to probability logical fallacy.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Let’s try this again….

The funny thing is is that this whole gay marriage issue is the leftist getting the Republicans to do EXACTLY what they want them to do– Move left, so that they can move even more left. And the middle moves even farther left. Progressives never stop progressing. Eventually Republicans will have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Gays rights will become transgender rights will become polygamists rights will become pedophile rights etc. And they will use the same tactics on each to pull Republicans to the left. THey have done it with social and fiscal issues and it is working.

As we continue to lose our identity as a party because we have to evolve, Dems are laughing at us.

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Appeal to probability logical fallacy.

There, that’s better.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM

And obviously the solution to this creep of decay is to surrender entirely???

Did you know that over 70% of prison inmates were born to single mothers? Did you know that, when controlling for single motherhood, the variation in incarceration rate, education level, and poverty level between blacks and whites DISAPPEARS? Or are these NO REASON to concern oneself with encouraging marriage? No water in that silly old “family” notion… tra-la-la… gee, this used to be such a nice neighborhood, I wonder what happened? Just something to think about…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM

And I will ask you the same question:

Are you suggesting we require pregnant women to get married? Or should unmarried pregnant women have abortions?

And how would stopping gays from getting married have any impact on straight people deciding to have children out of wedlock?

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Another precisely wrong statement from the butterfly. The 6 year old’s legal guardian can sign for her. Under current law that is entirely permissible. So are you going to prohibit a legal guardian from signing a contract in the 6 year old’s name? Wouldn’t that be getting the state back into the bedroom?

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 3:37 PM

So, by getting the government out of the marriage business you’re suggesting all pedophile laws will be null and void?

Man, there’s so much straw on this thread it’s a wonder it doesn’t burst into flames.

ButterflyDragon on March 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Appeal to probability logical fallacy.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Argument from fallacy logical fallacy.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Rand Paul is a genius on Immigration reform and social conservatism. What he’s trying to get the GOP to do is to embrace positions that will allow them to essentially remove both immigration and gay marriage as federal election issues. This would devastate the Democratic party, IF the GOP can no longer presented as the bad guy on these issues.

Obama and the Democrats are obsessed with making sure they never actually resolve certain issues, as long as the GOP will always be blamed for them by the mainstream media. Non-traditional marriage is one of those issues. It angers the young voter, who has gay friends whom they can’t look in the eye after voting GOP. With that vote it feels as though they’re supporting using the federal government to stop them from getting married. It’s personal, and it’s not a very good “freedom message”.

I’m a libertarian, so obviously I could give two craps about all social conservative issues. I understand the damaging affects of illegal immigration has on our country, largely because of the welfare state. But we’re still better off letting states largely handle social conservative issues, and finding some way of getting illegal immigration OFF THE TABLE – by whatever means possible.

Do that – and then MAYBE we can actually focus entirely on SPENDING instead of getting side tracked on personal issues involving someones marriage, or how they got to America.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM

And obviously the solution to this creep of decay is to surrender entirely???

Did you know that over 70% of prison inmates were born to single mothers? Did you know that, when controlling for single motherhood, the variation in incarceration rate, education level, and poverty level between blacks and whites DISAPPEARS? Or are these NO REASON to concern oneself with encouraging marriage? No water in that silly old “family” notion… tra-la-la… gee, this used to be such a nice neighborhood, I wonder what happened? Just something to think about…

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM

What does any of this have to do with the gay marriage debate? By bringing up single motherhood in relation to the current issue you appear to be suggesting there are a lot of men fathering children with women to whom they are not married who then go out and marry another man. Is that your contention?

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Argument from fallacy logical fallacy.

CapnObvious on March 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I didn’t say anything about her conclusion, I just pointed out her reasoning was fallacious.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The funny thing is is that this whole gay marriage issue is the leftist getting the Republicans to do EXACTLY what they want them to do– Move left, so that they can move even more left. And the middle moves even farther left. Progressives never stop progressing. Eventually Republicans will have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Gays rights will become transgender rights will become polygamists rights will become pedophile rights etc. And they will use the same tactics on each to pull Republicans to the left. THey have done it with social and fiscal issues and it is working.

As we continue to lose our identity as a party because we have to evolve, Dems are laughing at us. -
melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Appeal to probability logical fallacy. There, that’s better. – alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Wow, melle1228 really nailed that one./s

SC.Charlie on March 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Appeal to probability logical fallacy.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Ok, then you tell me on what basis under equal protection a gay couple can be married but a polygamous arrangement can be denied?

Or two siblings wishing to get all the benefits of a “union” while one of them cares for their ailing parent and the other works – or one of the siblings is ill and the other works?

If you’re going to argue that there’s no material difference between straight couplings and gay couplings then you’re leaving the door wide open.

gwelf on March 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Gonna agree with Rand Paul on this one. I kinda figured that the gay marriage activists would eventually win this one, simply because they were beating the hate and hypocrisy drum effectively. I didn’t think they’d gain ground this quickly, but for years I’ve wanted this issue diffused by making marriage purely private.

I would also recommend, for the sake of government record keeping, just, reclassifying all marriages as Civil unions. Marriage, is the ceremony, and the religious aspects of the private contract. So we don’t need to completely extricate marriage from the federal government to remove the issue from the ballot.

WolvenOne on March 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM

The funny thing is is that this whole gay marriage issue is the leftist getting the Republicans to do EXACTLY what they want them to do– Move left, so that they can move even more left. And the middle moves even farther left. Progressives never stop progressing. Eventually Republicans will have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Gays rights will become transgender rights will become polygamists rights will become pedophile rights etc. And they will use the same tactics on each to pull Republicans to the left. THey have done it with social and fiscal issues and it is working.

As we continue to lose our identity as a party because we have to evolve, Dems are laughing at us. -
melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Yeah, you’re totally nuts. It’s ridiculous to think that states would start mandating that “transgendered” children be treated as what ever gender they want to be on a whim and can use any bathroom and locker room of their choice.

/sarc

gwelf on March 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Butterfly:

That is not a strawman argument that is valid legal point. Any person who is legally responsible for a child can sign a contract in their name. Call an attorney if you don’t believe me. The contract could include a clause not allowing sexual intercourse prior to her or his coming of age. This kind of “marriage” exist today in muslim countries. What’s your beef with the argument? Is it that there can be no concept of mnarriage that doesn’t involve the state? Speaking of strawmen, your “make them get marriied” is exactly a strawman argument. Nobody said anything about forcing someone to get married. I merely pointed out the social chaos that exists in a world where marriage doesn’t exist.

jerryofva on March 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Yeah, you’re totally nuts. It’s ridiculous to think that states would start mandating that “transgendered” children be treated as what ever gender they want to be on a whim and can use any bathroom and locker room of their choice.

/sarc

gwelf on March 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

LOL– Yeppers I am nuts and totally making a logical fallacy.. Let’s just ignore the fact that the logical fallacy is in fact happening in the first state to legalize gay marriage..

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.. I am still the great and powerful Oz. :)

melle1228 on March 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

A lot of social conservatives are amenable to the argument that the state should just issue civil unions and leave marriage up to religions with strong protections for religious institutions, associations and the like to be allowed to practice their faith without being driven from the public square.

But if you’re arguing for this but find it ridiculous that the gay mafia won’t keep come after people (or even acknowledge that they are) then you come across as either uninformed or disingenuous.

gwelf on March 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5