Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Letís get marriage out of the tax code
Posted on 03/14/2013 7:41:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
I'd rather see the Patriot Act brought up, discussed, and recinded. It has bred a police state.
The problem is that, it is not what the gay agenda wants....They want to force every institution, to consider gay marriages on par with heterosexual ones, and force religious institutions to give them equal weighting, and they will not stop until they get it.
You give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.
Apparently, Allah Pundit doesn't understand the core of the conservative argument against same sex marriage.
1. Same sex marriage will make our culture more dangerous.
2. Heterosexual marriage is potentially procreative. Homosexual marriage never is. The state has an interest in the best arrangement for rearing children; it has none in who you get your jollies with.
3. Children have a right to be raised by their own mother and father.
4. The above means that if you allow the word "marriage" to cover anything, then eventually reality will force you to come up with a new word so you can distinguish those relationships that are potentially procreative.
#3. is your most powerful argument in today’s society, but I’m intrigued by #1. Can you elaborate and provide details?
I agree with Paul on this.
Who will play Solomon and ask the state to exit the sacrament business? The State has no business in the Church’s business.
Though, we here know that the radical agenda of “Progressives” is to force the Church by law to accept homosexuality as normal. They mean to rewrite the Holy Script. What will be left of Judeao-Christian doctrine then but a Success for the Left?
The fundamental problem conservatives have is not expressing the argument correctly.
Same-sex marriage is not about EQUALITY. It is about the redefinition and destruction of marriage.
If redefined, polyamorists, Muslims, Mormons, and anyone lese with money will be able to redefine it as well.
At this point I think all governments should just get out of the marriage business altogether. Stop issuing mariage licences and make everyone file taxes as a single. Then if their church, temple, coven, lesbian action league, gay men’s choir group or whatever wants to proclaim them married they can knock themselves out.
That is CLEARLY true... Even in states where they have been granted EVERY other benefit with a Civil Union, they are not happy... What they want is, for their bizarre behavior to be consider "normal" and "equal"... They crave something that is not reality, and never will be.
The government, bolstered by voter results in several lefty states, have clearly demonstrated why the government needs to get out of the marriage business and be content with writing laws defining civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever the hell else they wish to call it.
Leave marriage to the churches and synagogues alone to define.
If a worker demonstrates gross incompetence in a necessary skill-set and no inclination to improve but, indeed, a heightened stubbornness to cling to said incompetence, you assign them to a different line of work or get rid of them completely. So it should be with our government's involvement in marriage.
If DOMA is over-turned by the SCOTUS then it would make sense to do that, but otherwise it looks like another attempt to ‘end discrimination against gays’
Treating Gay Marriage differently under the tax code is, legally, the SAFEST part of the conservative position. The goverment doesn’t have to treat everyone equally with taxes...
It’s all the other stuff, like benefits, that are the problem.. IMO
That said, I agree that, getting government OUT of the marriage business altogether is now the only way to save “Marriage” as God intended.
I would dare say, they won't even be happy with "equal". They don't want to merely be "tolerated", they want to be "celebrated."
I agree with this for the most part. I also don’t think government should be able to marry people in offices. A marriage is done in a church, or some other kind of religious temple. It’s a ritual. If you’re an atheist, you can’t really be married, though you can sign onto a union of mutual financial interest and responsibility. A marriage is before divinity, a pact not only with a person, but with God.
This may be the best way to win the argument. Get government out of marriage, then homosexuals will have to join “homosexual churches” to get married, and as such progressive churches quickly lose membership and collapse, eventually, they just won’t be able to get “married”. They’ll be back in the deviant wilderness with the zoophiles and the polygamists.
While Paul’s idea is interesting from a theoretical perspective, there is a perfectly rational reason that government has given a privileged position to marriage in the first place. Traditional families have been integral to the formation of society and human beings are social animals. In times of need, people have historically turned first to family. The raising of children, emotional and economic support and other social benefits derive from the traditional family. If we do away with this, the need will remain and people will demand that an ever larger government fill the role of economic, emotional and social support that is now provided by the family. I doubt this is Paul’s desired outcome.
Exactly! Another concern I have had since the beginning of the gay marriage argument has been gay foreignor rights to live in the US if they marry a gay American.
A problem is that with LBJ’s “Great Society” and welfare, which replaced a parent with a government paycheck, that ship sailed a long time ago.
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.
Kuyper "spheres of sovereignty" PING
They are a tiny per cent of the voting population. Why does anyone listen to them?