Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

[Saint Milei]

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

[dudeabides]

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

He's 100000000000000000000000% correct here

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In general I agree, but it'd be far more simple to just recognize gay marriage and allow individual churches to marry whoever they want.

[Ebsy]

There are like 10% or less of people that actually want this.

[TomC]

Too late

[bedstuy]

This is an incredibly stupid argument.  And, he's clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Government provides the definition for marriage because you need society at large and the legal strucure to recognize marital relationships.  As such, it shouldn't discriminate.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell does this mean?  How would you protect the equal rights of same-sex couples, but not let them get married?

[TomC]

This is an incredibly stupid argument.  And, he's clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Government provides the definition for marriage because you need society at large and the legal strucure to recognize marital relationships.  As such, it shouldn't discriminate. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell does this mean?  How would you protect the equal rights of same-sex couples, but not let them get married?

Maybe when the officiant asks if anyone objects to the union, the state can provide conscientious objectors to stand up and object on behalf of the state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is this just meant to appeal to dumb libertarians?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This is the best stance he could possibly take without dropping to 0% chance thanks to Walker and Huckabee going far right on this.

[pbrower2a]

Won't. Be. Nominated.

[Blair]

so basically he's trying to have his cake and eat it too

[Maxwell]

so basically he's trying to have his cake and eat it too

Exactly.

[Famous Mortimer]

Moderate Hero position.

[Hydera]

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

What a piece of shiss.


But then again thats not the first time that libertarians said this mumbo jumbo. Id wouldn't be surprised if after Loving v. virginia if libertarianism is as much of a meme then as it is now.  libertarians would be talking about just "getting government out of marriage".

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Is this just meant to appeal to dumb libertarians?

That could be a description of Rand Paul's entire political career.

[Torie]

Very, very stupid. You see, with marriage, comes certain governmental benefits and duties, and burdens, tax wise, social security wise and otherwise. So unless Rand wants to dump all of that, what he is left with is just a name change from "marriage" to "civil unions" or something. Yes, there is a lot of emotion in the terminology, but legally and policy wise, it's pretty meaningless. Libertarians on some matters can be just so obtuse sometimes. They think there are magic wands out there, that make difficult issues go away.

[CountryClassSF]

I suppose it's preferable to the scenario we have now.

More people will start talking about this now because it is more feasible than federal marriage amendment

[RRProgressive]

Rand Paul should get out of the ideas business.

[Stranger in a strange land]

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

He's 100000000000000000000000% correct here

How? Marriage effects upon so many things, from child custody to inheritance to immigration to taxation to hospital visitation to end of life decisions that the government can't simply "get out of the marriage business". This would be a far, far greater threat to the "sanctity of marriage" than extending it to cover persons of the same sex.

[okierepublican]

Wouldn't they have to get rid of all the marriage tax breaks though? That won't go over well.

[Mehmentum]

Moderate Libertarian Hero position.

[DS0816]

Re: Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Rand Paul is full of *s*.

[Likely Voter]

So I am sure he is going to lead by example and divorce his wife and then sign some kind of contract with her.

This kind of kooky stuff is why he has a low ceiling. Imagine the reaction if he proposed this during the next GOP debate.

[WVdemocrat]

Is this just meant to appeal to dumb libertarians?

[sparkey]

Moderate Hero position.

Not really, it's a more radical position than simply legalizing same-sex marriage, because it would also make things like polygamy much easier. Presumably, people will be able to take the boiler-plate marriage-type contract that would exist, and modify it to their needs, including expanding it to include more than 2 parties. Libertarians largely understand this, so I'm surprised that the attacks Paul has been receiving haven't revolved around it. Instead, most critics seem to be assuming that his position is some sort of conservative backlash, like Amanda Marcotte does in this particularly awful piece.