Discussion for article #237970
Hey,Randy, nobody, but nobody from the federal government has made a single move toward forcing your holy ministers to perform same sex marriages so the government is not interfering with your practice of religion. What, in the end, they will not allow is every yahoo with a gripe against same sex marriage claim “religious persecution”. In short, we will keep our civil laws out of your place of worship and you and your church can keep your bible out of your civil business. Got it? That is how the founding fathers intended regardless of how selectively and erroneously you read your Constitution and your Bible. Your statements make a mockery of both and a lot of us are tired of hearing the blather you spout.
38 Likes
I’'m sure that those who never worked and depend on their spouse’s Social Security will dissent from the latest bullshit eruption out of Ayn Rand Paul’s mouth.
12 Likes
Thus eliminate all tax breaks and rights provided to married couples under the law too? Also, wouldn’t this open the door to what the Rs are most concerned about, a monkey, sheep and an athiest getting married under the veil of their new monkey/sheep based religion?
17 Likes
This isn’t a totally ridiculous position. At the end of the day, marriage is and always has been a contract between 2 individuals. Why have the government bless or deny such a contract, entered into freely by consenting adults? The issue of health care, pensions, Social Security can be dealt with by allowing anyone to designate one other person, beyond their children, as a beneficiary. If 2 siblings want to designate each other, why not? You shouldn’t necessarily have to have sex with someone to decide to share health insurance.
3 Likes
“I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere,”
OK–how about we get religion out of government while we’re at it?
25 Likes
I really don’t understand the reasoning here.
Is he saying government should not be involved in marriage?
So people don’t need to be married…?
Is he suggesting only churches do so? If so, what about people like me that are not religious?
When I married, we did so thru the Justice of the Peace. That worked well for us but I guess since Mr Libertarian is running for president, that should be scrapped…?
This guy is such a cowardly weasel or a big fake (I can’t help but wonder if he even wrote this op ed)
He’s running for president and since a constituency he has to pander to doesn’t seem to be for gay marriage, he takes the coward role and decides government should not be involved. Much like his stance against Civil Rights. I bet he would have used the same argument about desegregation back then too.
I get there are one of two issues progressives may agree with Paul about. But as a whole, this guy is a typical, garden variety Republican.
11 Likes
will we just go down to Walmart to handle divorces and keep tabs on deadbeat childcare dads? having the IRS end joint filing should go over well too.
12 Likes
But why only one other person? If there are no rules other than the law of contracts, just think of the wonderfully Byzantine variations that would be possible!
Of course, this is one of the fatal flaws of libertarianism. Everything is governed by private contract, with virtually no government regulation. That means that half the population will, at any given time, be suing the other half, for something. Can you have a working economy in which a quarter of the people are attorneys, and another quarter are judges?
10 Likes
So wait… it isn’t “gay marriage” that is destroying the institution of marriage, it’s the GOP? Interesting play, Rand!
9 Likes
But pensions and healthcare benefits involve another party, the employer or Social Security, so there need to be some limits, and one (plus minor children) is reasonable. I’m hardly a libertarian, but in this area, why does the State need to bless who I choose to live with? Nor would this result in more lawsuits than already occur in divorces and child custody already. The parties could dissolve their contract by the same means as they do today.
Well, isn’t that the dumbest thing we’ve heard today? Wait, the day aint over yet!!!
9 Likes
Another mealy mouth response, full of thunder but empty of substance.
2 Likes
maybe its time for everyone to recognize that no matter how loudly RandBoy blows about being a Libertarian he has no idea what that means… self-certifying oneself with a label doesn’t mean the label is actually true…
3 Likes
WOW – What a political loopty-loop — Trying to walk the fence and not take a side so he can play to both-- WON’T WORK DICKHEAD !!!
2 Likes
Wow, some real leadership there, squirrel head.
Libertarians are really just 5 yr olds who want their way. They don’t care about freedom. They care about having everyone live as they want to.
5 Likes
One and probably only thing I agree with Jesse Ventura about. Government should grant and call them civil unions. People can call their union whatever they like and say 'it’s blessed by whatever god they believe in.
3 Likes
While the government will always have to regulate marriage, a strong 1st Amendment argument could be made that we should divorce marriage from religion. All unions would be civil. All weddings would happen at the local courthouse. If somebody wants to be married in a church they might go there for a legally meaningless ceremony but the courthouse wedding would be the one that counts.
3 Likes
As far as I can tell, what me means is that everyone who is currently married gets all the legal rights and responsibilities (including pension and social security transfer, title transfer, medical benefits etc), but anyone who wants to get married in the future is SOL. It’s sorta like the GOP’s “Cut Social Security for everyone who hasn’t retired yet” only on steroids.
4 Likes