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
Every small gain to them is a win.
who decides about hwo get the kdis how about divorce how about who gets the dog and house then.
Homosexuals want their sham marriage to destroy the traditional family, one has to be ignorant or dumb to not know that today.
hell we have the rules for communism in 1963.
we have them using Alinsky tactics who oppose them.
then we have ex KGB saying how they want to destory America]]
just head on the radio that the military has seen a massive increase of sexual assaults/rapes on men by men last year and I guarantee that is no coincidence that don;t ask was done away with.
Also heard that this admin has spent one and a half million on a study about homosexual women not being fat.
The sooner our side speaks up about this issue the sooner our children will have a better future and the sooner we will stop this insane madness.
someone posted this earlier about drugs but I think it also applies to the homosexual agenda and the Communist rules of 1963.
When one reads the 63 rules, then the Alinsky rules and the Cloward and Poiven and then hear what this guy said and then see how the left are using the homosexual agenda to destroy the family then one has to be the dumbest most stupid fool to not think something is going on all these decades and yes it;s not the usual of I know someone and they;re nice and they love each other crap
...to be Useful Idiot paving stones upon the road to demoralization:
According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.
The first stage being demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.
Most of the activity of the department [KGB] was to compile huge amount / volume of information, on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publisher, editors, journalists, uh actors, educationalists, professors of political science. Members of parliament, representatives of business circles.
Most of these people were divided roughly into two groups: those who would tow the Soviet foreign policy, they would be promoted to positions of power through media and public manipulation; [and] those who refuse the Soviet influence in their own country would be character assassinated OR executed physically, come Revolution.
KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov
Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
One who doe snot understand the steps in their agenda today are either stupid, ignorant or just couldn;t careless or does want the family and American destroyed
and who decides on who gets what , you know little things like the kids then.
Time for people to wake the hell up about marriage and what the homosexuals and the radical left really want and it;s not just marriage and using the usual crap of Govt out of it is just a pointless stupid argument with a left wing kook or an idiot
hope he;s not turing into his nut case dad and giving the left presents.
I hate it when these so called lefty arguments are used to back left wing agendas and then they call themselves conservatives, they are not they;re libertarians who want drugs legal, any kind of marriage nad live a life of anarchy and od what ever they want
roblem si that someone has to decide on wo gets what when the marriage has failed and that is Govt and the church is hardly going to do that are they, so that liberal communist argument of Govt out of it is pathetic IMHO
starting to think Paul is a libetarian and not a conservative but yet again we have another libertarian who wants to fly on the republican ticket because they can;t get anywhere in the libertarian ticket and then they expect us to change our views to suit their anarchy
then who decies on the divorce issues, who gets the kids
quite nice saying Govt get ut but when you think about things then it doens;t really work like that
hell even with the founders they had meetings and the leaders of that community the local Govt settled things
LOL, yea people get married and think they will stay all their lives wiht each other but the problem is that they have kids and then want a divorce and that is when the govt steps in.
Govt out of marriage is a cop out for the simple or not thought about it folk.
I;m sick of hearing that homosexuals should marry and then it;s cousins, then get rid of age limits
Govt out of it is a cop out which sounds good but not in reality
if he;s turing into his father and giving presents tot he homosexuals and the radical left then he;s lost me and he needs to be put on the libertarian ticket not a republcian one and that goes for all the libertarians who pretend they;re conservative
What the heck are you talking about? Unmarried couples who split up bring these things to the government all the time. Except when they don't and can figure it out themselves. And if the government isn't by default involved that would mean divorcing married couples who can agree on separation without the involvement of a judge can do it themselves. Just like some of the unmarried breakups do today.
I have to say after reading everyone's reasons for why the government should stay in the marriage business, I'm more convinced than ever they should get the heck out. Immigration is not a compelling reason. Social security will be a mess, but it's going to be a mess anyway.
put divorce in the clergy, er what about two people from different religions?
Ok then do you seriously think after having kids that I woudl listen to a guy years later who never married me because he;s now dead and he;s telling me to not see my kids.
yea right, dream on, that is what anarchy is about, so if there is o law protecting this then it;s one for all and a lots of bad temper\\
I wish people would wake the hell up and stop repeating what sounds good
again who is to decide who gets my kids, my house, my money?
I;ve heard one libertarian sttae how the clergy should decide,
Like I;mgoing to listen to the clergy guy who never married me and what about two people like my wife and I who married and did nto marry in a church because of different religions?
Fact is Govt is in involved and they decide who gets what and if the courts told me after divorce I had to do something then I do it so I do not break the law but if some one who tells me to do something with my kids after my divorce and they have no legal standing ten they can take a flying leap off a bridge
Alex, things that morally ambivalent idiot libertarians believe for $1000.
do you have any idea how many ex married couples can not agree on who gets the kids and house or dog?
Living in a dream anarchy world if one thinks people will just agree on who gets their kids in a divorce and those people need to wake the hell up and stop pretending to be republican and admit they;re libertarian or liberal which is not far off from each other ,, infact the same on social issues
just reading all these comments and the couple of posters who think Govt should stay out of it use the same argument as liberals/libertarian which are the same on social issues anyway.
they live in some fantasy dream world where they think people will just leave each other, agree on the kids, who gets the house, and then I read off one poster who said that the clergy shold decide,
LOL Yea OK but what about two people from different religions, do we have a sit down with a rabbi and a Christian, yea that isn;t going to work
Wish these people would wake the hell up, maybe the impressionable idiots might one day who knows but in the meantime the radical left are loving what Paul is saying and maybe Rand is going the same way as his father/
Why can;t libertarians just admit they;re not republicans, they;re not conservatives, \Use their own party , and primary
Well maybe Rand Paul is going against the old man, who came out for sodomite marriage during the debates, and also voted to lift DADT and codify sodomy in the US Armed Forces.
Libertarians have something in common with extreme leftists -they hold a delusional belief in some utopian vision of what could be but is not and never has been. Social disorder and anarchy are just as much enemies of liberty as tyranny is...
agree, they are no better than the occupy smelly lot hwo want no Govt and do what ever they want and to hell with everyone and the country.
Pope Francis has said same-sex marriage is the work of the devil and a destructive attack on Gods plan. He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.
God bless this Holy Man an may be keep speaking the true
word of God.
totally totally agree with him and you/
I was in foster care going home to home and there is no way I wanted two men to take me in their house and let me see them living with each other or kissing or being taken to those freak parades.
I love this Pope and I;m not a catholic
Er, okay, if you say so. What's your point about that?
The government certainly doesn't either. The churches and synagogues might.
LOVE your tagline, BTW.
I think you're underestimating the envy, the crazy, and the evil. They can't do real marriage, because they're not willing to do what it takes to "get there." Rather than change themselves, they want to change marriage, minimize it, destroy it.
There is no common ground with crazy people. For them, the self-righteousness, the operatic fuss, and the conflict are the whole point. It's certainly not being marriedgay "marriage" divorce rates are through the roof, even for lesbians.
Vast majority of what? (Are you a college student or something? People don't do half of what they say they do. . .)
Yours is a point I along with countless other Social Conservatives have been making for a very long time.
You are absolutely correct. It’s not about the tax code, it’s about destroying the institution of marriage and its religious roots in GOD’s ordination of marriage being one man, one woman.
I dunno about "vast majority" - but at least a substantial minority.
Vast majority of what? (Are you a college student or something?
Take it from this 49-year-old married man - it's not just for college students.
I don’t deny that there are cases where the Government needs to recognize a union, but not necessarily the union of marriage.
Marriage is a family union which is inherently based upon the power of God not state. Even the State in most divorce proceedings dos not recognize its own power to break that union merely end its own legal enforcement of said union.
If you ask me, then someone who wants a real marriage goes through a religious institution such as the Catholic or Mormon church. Nether of which recognize divorce.
I would very much like my own denomination to provide a similar service in the form of recognizing and registering real marriages.
For now, people need to recognize that the State will offer you no real stability nor unity with your spouse and thus no real marriage. That family bond must come from no other than God & your allegiance to him.
To place your faith in the state in this matter has proven itself to be for noght. The State has not a moral nor stable fiber left in it.
A law that will apply to many, but only be enforced against a few, is a bad law. Giving the state such power to pick and choose invites abuse and tyranny.
I’m presuming that it wouldn’t actually be enforced against married couples, many of whom do these very things. If it is, that makes the law all the more tyrannical.
I don't agree that if anti-sodomy laws are less likely to be enforced against married couples (man-and-woman ones), that makes them tyrannical. Privacy happens. Married couples are entitled to a great deal of privacy, and unmarried couples, quite a bit less. Part of this has to do with public order, and the fact that you need to shield that order against scandalous behavior in order to protect nearby children and adults from its consequences. Unchaste or perverse acts have consequencesa kind of ripple effect of coarseness and recklessness that emanates from people whose lives revolve around gratification for its own sake.
Acts between people who aren't married are intrinsically more "public," because their relation to each other isn't permanent. A gay bar is a lot more public, and that's why the cops used to bust them. As they did non-gay bars that were essentially prostitution shopping centers.
Societies disappear and die without children. We have slipped below replacement level in our society, I think because our idea that various intoxicating substances and various acts against the natural law, because they can be gratifying to individuals, are a public right under all circumstances. They're not rights, but wrongs.
Locales always used to limit these activities and others such as loitering, by local codes, and under the U.S. Constitution, they have every right to do so. The Founders would have been appalled had they notreligious people, who are the intended beneficiaries of the USC, do not casually tolerate open immorality. If we want to follow the Constitution, we have to pay attention to where it says "Congress shall pass no law . . ." and where it explicitly leaves the rest "to the States and the People, respectively." If we don't like the blue-noses upstate, the USC allows us to move to Greenwich Village, where the local codes are very different indeed.
Well, it’s good to know where he stands.
With the libertarians - “let’s destroy marriage and help the homo agenda while pretending not to!” Except Libertarians don’t pretend not to.
Historically, marriage was a religious and cultural institution, not a legal one. Government only inserted itself into the issue when it wanted to do some social engineering and/or taxing.
I’m all in favor of getting government completely out of the marriage business. It is none of their business. I’m in favor of marriage (as the term has been understood for thousands of years), but not in favor of government subsidies or penalties. And I’m especially not in favor of government intrusion into my personal business in any way, shape, or form.
It’s really none of the government’s business whether I’m married or not. That’s between me, my spouse, and God. The only other entities who should have any interest in it are my family and friends. Not governments or businesses.
Want to get the marriage out of the tax code?
Pass the Fair Tax.
For any other retirement system, you get to name your beneficiary. You don’t with SS. The government provides survivor benefits. This would have to be changed.
I can see how a marriage license proves a couple is married. But regarding dependent children, how does the immigrant prove the children are theirs?
There is so much immigration from third world and fourth world countries today, I cannot believe all of these immigrants have marriage licenses and birth certificates of their children.
The State must define marriage. Obviously, this is a thorny problem for a church-less State, but we managed fairly well for almost 200 years.
Additionally, the homosexual "marriage" issue has implications far beyond legalized sodomy. For example, how can government schools legally exclude "Dick and Dick" reading books for first graders?
How can the State prohibit the adoption of children by legally "married" sodomites?
Libertarians have thrown our children to the lions by taking an agnostic position regarding marriage.
No position is a position.
I used to believe that was the reason, but not anymore.
When sodomites can legally "marry," they can legally adopt.
First graders will read "Dick and Dick" books. Who can legally stop them?
They're going after the children.
And God help the Christians who stand by and watch.
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." --Jesus
The purpose of sodomy laws isn't to put cameras in people's bedrooms. This is a silly straw man argument pushed by the Left, because they want to avoid talking about their true agenda.
The purpose of criminalizing sodomy is to provide a legal basis for prohibiting public displays of sodomy, "gay" bars, bath houses, and anything else in the public realm that encourages sodomy.
For example, with the legalization of sodomy, government school textbooks for young children can present sodomite "families" as normal and ethical. Prohibitions against the adoption of children by sodomites would have no legal basis. The implications are far-reaching.
Replies 8 and 9.
You both make good arguments. Get the government out of marriage.
The queers won’t like it because it takes away one of their most powerful pulpits, but I don’t care. The government is spending way too much time and our tax dollars on something that fundamentally is none of their business.
Tired but true: you can’t legislate morality.
Yes... that's a BIG reason as well. All part of the same.
- We used to marry women from other countries without interference.
- We used to have only assets people had as money to be shared with a spouse.
- We used to hold the parents on a birth record as the legal guardians (and sole providers—NOT government) until some legal situation changed that (such as death of parents).
Your points do not prove why it's wrong for government to get out of marriage. Your arguments prove why government should get out of even more pervasive matters.
It’s too late to privatize marriage. The state has utterly taken it over, and the results are much the same as with everything else the state takes over. Rand Paul is naive to think that his proposal will in any way protect traditional marriage. It might take away one small, technical argument the gay marriage proponents use, but it won’t even slow them down.
I cringe at weddings when the priest/minister says “by the power vested in me by the state of _______”. We’ve been sitting there in a church, hearing about God’s idea of marriage for an hour or so, and suddenly, the state shows up out of nowhere. Who invited them? Oh well, it’s too late to kick them out. They crashed the wedding.
Rand is a rational man who doesn’t get how fanatics think. The gay activists are fanatics. They are on a vendetta against society, the church and God. They do not even know what they want or else they would not go to bath houses and do the things they do which are dangerous to their own lives. When people’s obsessions supersede their survival instinct, they should definately not be leading the parade of social change. Many homosexual activists are very bright and glib, they are very good at rationalizing their insanity and that is very dangerous not just for them but for society as a whole.
When they invade churches during religious services they are declaring war on the churches. These are not nice people and they do not want to go half way. They want it all. They are mad, sick people who want to control society. The more power they get by weak people giving in to them the worst they get. They are very much like spoiled children who become more irrational the more their parents give in to them.
In short: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
No we do not and the government should not be allowed to do so either...it is not their business, period.