Rand Paul: Get Govt. Out of Marriage
Related to my post yesterday about those saying government shouldn't be involved in marriage, Rand Paul just came out saying government should get out of it. Reason's Scott Shackford seems about as impressed as I am with trying to make that case:
"We need high-profile politicians like Paul to stop asking us what would happen if we got government out of marriage and start telling us what would happen if we got government out of marriage."
Not that libertarians necessarily want people telling them how things are going to be, but it makes sense for those in power to tell us what they actually have in mind. In other words, no pun intended, be more specific in your proposal.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:20 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Right....Lets get government out of enforcing contracts and let religion take over instead.
Bending over and taking from it from religion is meek, at best. Stop being such an ass kisser to the religious powers that scare you.
Are we going to get the Government and Courts out of Divorce too? Exactly how would that work?
"Are we going to get the Government and Courts out of Divorce too? Exactly how would that work?"
That's why myself and others would hear some more precise proposals, rather than "government shouldn't be involved in marriage". But, it's not that far fetched. Courts deal with property conflicts between non- married people all the time. You see it on those silly reality court shows, Judge Judy and the like fairly often. It already happens in real courts.
"..Lets get government out of enforcing contracts and let religion take over instead."
That a bunch of bullshit. Religious people end up in divorce court all the time and no one but LGBT in- your- face types like you are suggesting marriage be the sole domain of churches. At least if you consider simply a legal contract.
But your attitude does show the downside to the recent SCOTUS decision. There's a strong hatred for the churches amongst a fair number of LGBT folks. I think the churches aren't being paranoid to think this recent decision might be used as precedent to further attacks on religion and churches.
Just yesterday a fellow commented that churches should lose tax exempt status because some won't marry gays, and thus are bigoted. I won't be surprised at all if this emboldens the LGBT folks to try and force more people to "bake cakes" and so on, perhaps even pushing some sort of federal law for it. The LGBT folks have as much as admitted it with one local gal commenting recently on the decision, "This is just the beginning".
Wouldn't it be simpler for Rand Paul to get out of government?
A hatred for churches? Yeah they hate all that peace and love stuff.
You kiss religious peoples asses. Stop being such a mammas boy. Governments enforce contacts!!!!
"Governments enforce contacts"
I never said they didn't.
Defending FAKE religious people is less than honorable. Religion is about love and acceptance. Fools like Fred sit and laugh as its used as a tool to hate and oppress.
Now you are going to change your stance? Have you no shame or honor?
Marriage is a contract. You dont think the government should enforce it. Where am I confused? Or do you not have real convictions about this issue and know it's just a good wedge issue. That's sure what it seems like.
"Marriage is a contract. You dont think the government should enforce it."
I have wrote recently, and umpteen other times here that marriage- or whatever you care to call it- is a contract. You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension. Is that you, Johnny Maniac?
And your continuous attacks on religion enforces the point I made earlier: The churches do have reason to worry.
Lets go slowly here. It's a contact...we both agree there!....that you continually say that the government shouldn't be involved in enforcing. You've posted multiple times about it now.
Stop denying what youve said over and over! You sound like a child. Especially when you say that I attack religion. Are you drunk? I attacked FAKE religious people.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
".that you continually say that the government shouldn't be involved in enforcing"
I don't believe I've ever wrote that anywhere. I've wrote the exact opposite: That government is involved in marriage simply because "marriage" is a legal contract and government is generally charged with disputes over legal contracts.
The point of contention is who should decide who is allowed to get married. In that regard, government probably shouldn't be involved. Any adult of legal age and sound mind should be able to enter into a legal contract.
I've also wrote more than once I don't mind giving the word "marriage" to the churches to do with as they please. But, as far as government is concerned, it should be simply a civil union or contract. Call it whatever you want. Church marriage, or not, to government it should be a civil...something.
As far as Rand Paul and other's proposals to get government out of marriage, that's what I've written in the last two posts: How? Show us how it will work. Makes little difference to me, but I'd like to see some specifics other than "Government should get out of the marriage business".
I know what they're trying to say: That people make their own contracts without government permission. Those contracts would still be actionable in court, as we see with room mates or neighbors suing each other. Maybe those advocating government getting out could use that for an example, but you'd still have to quibble over recording marriages at the courthouse, or would you?
HAHA! You are twisting yourself like a pretzel trying to explain your sour grapes!
They are NOT saying that government shouldn't decide who gets married, they are saying that government shouldn't be involved at all. Why are you trying to obfuscate the truth? Oh yeah you have sour grapes.
Let me get this straight....I'm supposed to go to a courthouse to record a marriage when the government has nothing to do with marriage?
You know damn well that you think church should have all the powers of marriage.
The only scenario I'd support for government not issuing marriage licenses is if government decided to impart no benefits to married couples.
Unless that's his proposal, then government needs to issue marriage licenses.
"You are twisting yourself like a pretzel trying to explain your sour grapes!"
Johnny, you're going in circles and coming off as a nut case to me, and I'm sure others. End of discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home