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?
Because they have a significant hold over our media.
One cannot really run a society on pure libertarian principles. It just won’t work.
Eventually, the “shoulds” and “oughts” of human life will get in the way.
The moment you have LAWS, you are implicitly admitting that certain moral principles must be adhered to by society whether individuals like it or not.
And these LAWS will depend on what Moral Values ( i.e. First Principles ) society adheres to. It can be informed by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Atheism, but you cannot escape or avoid adhering to something.
Rand is right, as far as I’m concerned-the fed has no business in what is a religious ritual/sacrament at all, period-it has become a slippery slope.
I was taught that marriage is a sacrament-not a celebration of signing a contract at a courthouse. I don’t see the word “marriage” in the constitution listed as an inalienable right, either-leave it to the religious institutions to define what marriage is or is not. I believe it is the only way to stop the government meddling in church business.
This where Rand Paul is destructine and not a conservative. Obviously he doesn’t believe in the natural law as our founders did. Why o why has the natural law changed in some way? I’m not sure you can call yourself a Christian and support the destruction of society and the family.
but the media doesn’t have a significant hold on anyone, does it?
The other thing about the “get government out of the marriage business” position is that it is absolutely cowardly and shows a real lack of courage to defend what is right and good about America.
It's not for nothing that members of the homosexual lobby and the abortion lobby are always found at each other's fund-raisers. The abortionists, as O'Keefe showed, serve the needs of pimps who run under-age girls, for which they are reimbursed with taxpayer dollars for "indigent women" under Title X. The homosexual males want to legalize and expand their trade in young boys. Lesbians are along for the ride, undermining marriage for the sake of sticking it to less-damaged women who were able to bond with men.
The law is not just a teacher. It's an enabler. It needs to be made to enable good, rather than utter evil.
I really don’t know what the answer is to this mess, but wouldn’t individual states already honor contracts between individuals on pretty much this sort of thing?
so you’re all for government intervention as long as you agree with what they are intervening. Got it.
I’ve had this argument for as long as I can remember. If the tax system were flat then the government wouldn’t need to care who is married. It should rightfully be a decision of the Church or other institutions to decide what marriage is and who can be married. I’m sure the true believers don’t accept gay “marriage” as a part of a perfect plan of the almighty. Support for gay “marriage” in the context of religious institutions would necessarily plummet.
marriage is not religious under the law.
using religion to argue marriage surrenders the debate to the left in total. for law, logic trumps mere faith.
Logic is the rule here. Marriage is about family and what is a legal family for the furtherance of society. Child production, child raising, pathernity and maternity, inheritance, and property rights.
marriage is a commonon law institution. It is not a legislative fiction. Any legislative change can only be narrowly construed. For example adoption does not exist at common law, thus all adoption law is a legislative act and narrowly construed.
Society rewards the institution not the individual recreational sex.
There is no love test in the constitution either.
There is no international tourism law.
There is no immigration law in the constitution.
logic must rule, faith is a tool of the enemy (ala the left saying christians must always surrender to the lions)
What has radically changed in the last 230+ years with regards to the natural law that the founders fully belived in that warrants this radical chabge in the way that government respects and acknowledges traditions and beliefs of almost every human civilization? Nothing.
It goes beyond that. They see it as just and freeing if children down to the preschool level are taught that they can be whatever sex—or something otherwise or in between, that they’d like to be. I’ve come across that argument already.
RE: as far as Im concerned-the fed has no business in what is a religious ritual/sacrament at all, period-it has become a slippery slope.
Let’s put our thinking caps on for a while.
Let’s say that the term “marriage” is not longer an institution the government ( Fed or State or local ) recognizes.
How does the government administer laws like immigration, spousal contracts, divorce, social security, etc. if we do away with the recognition of marriage?
Does the government regulate private contracts thru the public courts or not? Is not the contract between husband and wife the most important contract that can be put into force?
I agree with you - what do we do about Social Security spousal benefits? I see that as the only real problem
I TOLD YOU ALL
HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
HIS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IS BASED ON IMMORALITY, NOT FREEDOM
LICENSE, NOT LIBERTY!
Last time I check Sodomy is not a crime.. I take it you want the Government to arrest people who does Sodomy???
The only one of those that's a problem is Social Security. Divorce (division of property) is already common among Hollywood's unmarried. I would like to know how SS would be handled if the Fed got out of the marriage business (which I think they should).
If the institution of marriage and raising a family isn’t directly implied in the phrase “life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” I don’t know what is.
Goddamn. Rand, what a moron.
Why are we capitulating on one of our most important issues?
Cross him off the list for 2016. He coulda been a contender.
RE: The only one of those that’s a problem is Social Security.
People don’t just immigrate without their spouses. How do you have an immigration law that does not recognize a person’s marriage from another country?
ALL social issues should be taken out of the federal government’s hands. Paul is right. Or we could just go on fighting about it forever and screwing with a tax code already so fouled up it will never be fixed.
You cannot separate social policy from fiscal policy....that’s what allowed the government to grow into the leviathan that it is today.
I agree the very idea that the Government should demand a Licence to get married is objectionable.
Just to remind everyone out there: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND CANNOT MARRY YOU!
The Government is an incoherent institution of force, not a wife or husband.
Only God can marry you and thus only God’s consent is of any legitimately indispensable significance.
Indeed it wasn’t until around 100 years ago at the beginning of the “progressive era” that any american government ever became so arrogant as to demand a say in your marriage.
Let that say end now!
I'm sick of hearing about homosexuals and all their supposed discrimination that they can't marry. Do I believe that two people of the same gender living together as husband and wife put their souls in immortal peril? Yes. Do I think they should have the right to do that in a free country? Yes. Do I think the government should call them married? No. Do I care if the government thinks my wife and I are married? No. Do I care if the Lord pours out blessings on my wife and me in the beautiful sacrament of marriage? Yes. That was why we married in a church. I don't really understand why CHristians care if our decidedly unGodly government should get out of the marriage business.
Good point about immigration. I’m not familiar with immigration law at all - are people currently allowed to emigrate with their dependents?
“ALL social issues should be taken out of the federal governments hands. Paul is right. Or we could just go on fighting about it forever and screwing with a tax code already so fouled up it will never be fixed.”
There is an extremely simple understanding that should be passed on to those too lasy to bother to read the Federal Constitution:
If we cannot agree in Washington it should be left to the States. If we cannot agree in our state house it should be left to the local government. If we cannot agree there it should be left to the family.
Government on every issue is by no means indispensable. Men & women are perfectly capable of govern themselves by the rules of nature on almost every matter of life. No better proof of this fact can be more easily found than to observe in history that we have before governed ourselfs on the matters.
It is the objection of every party arguing for change that the method of self-government is imperfect just as it is the shortsightedness of every party to fail to see the imperfections of their own preferred method.
Let us agree to disagree, and to live by the resulting rules of mutual respect for each-others right to self-government.
not just dependents, you can bring along 15 immediate relatives too. and then they can and so on.
“I don’t really understand why CHristians care if our decidedly unGodly government should get out of the marriage business.”
Do you care about Habeaus corpus and Trial by Jury?
Perhaps you can help me see the capitulation here JC?
The concept of marriage licences is a liberal idea designed to give the state(and thus them) some lever of control over our marriages.
That control is now being abused so why not just wipe it out? Return marriage to the exclusive province of the church & God where it has belonged for many thousands of years prior to the “progressive era”.
I see no capitulation here, On the contrary. I see only jumping to the logical conclusion to cut off the left.