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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
I TOLD YOU ALL
HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
HIS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IS BASED ON IMMORALITY, NOT FREEDOM
LICENSE, NOT LIBERTY!
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.
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!
Wow. The bloom sure came off the Rand Paul rose quick. Talk about, “shooting yourself in the foot.”
I happen to see a government role in promoting and supporting the traditional family unit. It sounds to me like Paul is running scared from the Democrat sodomite “mainstream” newsrooms and the rest of the militant faggot lobby.
If tax policy is intends to influence society, then marit tax deductions are in order. We need children(future taxable asset).