by Eric DonderoA flurry of media attention is now on libertarian Republican candidate for US Senate Rand Paul, ever since SurveyUSA found last week, Paul pulling ahead of the GOP field for the first time. With the attention, comes increased scrutiny of his views. One of the issues Paul's being called on is Gay Marriage.
From the AP, Nov. 10:
This is a difficult tightrope to walk," said [Univ. of KY Poli Sci Prof. Stephen] Voss, who nonetheless believes Paul may be the front-runner right now. "When he's talking economics and money, he is philosophically a libertarian. When he talks about social issues, he's sending guarantees to the right wing that he's not libertarian."
He also opposes marriages between gay and lesbian couples. At the same time, he voices staunch opposition to government intruding in the private lives of citizens.
What the article doesn't specify is that the libertarian approach to the issue is to oppose "government sponsored" Gay Marriage. The distinction is hugely important. Rand Paul, and other generally Right Libertarians have no problem with a Gay or Lesbian couple having a marriage ceremony in a public park or public facility with a couple of attorneys, a priest or rabbi, and scores of friends and family. Any libertarian would of course, be fiercely opposed to any local government regulations prohibiting the issuance of such a permit.
They want to get married. Have at it. But why should the government be involved?
Libertarians would eventually like to "privatize marriage" altogether, including for heterosexual couples. Essentially, let the churches and synagogues handle it.
What rankers libertarians is the affirmative action aspect of Gay Marriage; government health care coverage, special hiring quotas, regulations forcing businesses to provide benefits to gay partners, ect...
The younger Paul is on entirely solid ground with his stance from a libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, liberal media types don't take the time to look into the alternative libertarian perspective on the issue. They're still stuck in that old rut of liberals in favor of gay marriage vs social conservatives strongly opposed. They can't comprehend the Right Libertarian view; Just keep the government out of it altogether.
19 comments:
It has me beat as to why some of these kooks are willing to reject someone who appears to represent the movement in about 99% of our ideas because of the other 1%. In reality I agree with him totally as I believe the main difficulty with the marriage issue is state involvement.
Marriage is after all a private contractual arrangement which some choose to ask the churches blessing on.
I don't even know how many times I've had this argument. I'm hoping the voices get loud enough to get government out of the marriage business. Government has no business being involved in marriages.
I consider myself a Libertarian and his view is similar to mine If asked if I support gay marriage, I would vote NO. I would support civil union however. Its not about denying rights to gay ppl, its to deny giving them special rights
I consider marriage something between a man and female, but
I don't have any issue with gay ppl want to be together or get married or call it what privately, BUT don't push your definition on to ME by creating laws with YOUR definition of it. In th at sense I want marriage privatized. If church don't want to hold gay marriage ceremony then they should have the right to deny it. Its their religion its their property
Rand Paul is an insane Kook
http://tookookyforkentucky.com
Anonymous--you are a coward.
You keep posting that stupid link. Man up and identify yourself. Or we can all be free to conclude you're a lefty working for DailyKos.
Well I believe gay marriage should be legal, but it's a state choice like abortion and drugs. Now I really don't care, because I'm not gay. So I normally just skip the gay stance on the resume.
That's a good way to look at it. The definition of "marriage" should be private property. No government involved in it.
Great article. Thanks.
I support the complete privatization of marriage. The State should not have any role in the matter beyond public health and insurance issues.
As far as Dr. Rand Paul, he has remained somewhat equivocal on this issue.
Eric, I believe you clarify his position on the matter more so than he himself ever has.
Falling back on the fallacy of "State's Rights" is attempting to have it both ways. I still have yet to discover the phrase "state's rights" in the U.S. Constitution. Individuals have rights. States have powers.
Either Dr. Rand Paul believes a nation-state has the power over the individual to grant the decree of marriage over some individuals, while excluding other individuals, or it does not have any such legitimate powers.
Taking into account Realpolitik considerations, I can certainly understand why he needs to straddle such a position in the primary, but let us not laud him for this tactic
Marriage is a societal institution that is recognized by government. There is nothing "individual" about marriage. To claim it is an individually defined institution is to reveal a basic ignorance about what marriage is.
Likewise, to assert that the government a society creates should be somehow neutral about the founding institutions of that society, is again, to reveal a stunning lack of intellect.
Marriage is what it is and isn't what it isn't. The proponents of this mythical absurdity called "gay marriage" show that in the gutless evasions they employ when discussing it. They use the same cowardly tactics as do the pro-abortion scum.
@Chuck
Marriage is an institution involving two individuals coming together to form a covenant. A binding contract. You get married at City Hall, you have a entered into a contract. You get married at a church, temple, mosque, or a Las Vegas Elvis impersonator, you have entered into a civil contract and a religious convenant, ordained by God in the case of the religious institutions.
Chuck said:
"Likewise, to assert that the government a society creates should be somehow neutral about the founding institutions of that society, is again, to reveal a stunning lack of intellect.
Who is talking about neutrality? Is the government being neutral when privatizing roads, industries (although that won't be happening anymore it seems, sadly), or is it neutral when it does not promote a state religion?
Or is it simply staying out of matters it does not/should not have powers over?
I don't see a constitutional clause regarding marriage in any form, period. Therefore, it is left to the individuals to carve their own paths.
"...is again, to reveal a stunning lack of intellect."
You're really keeping me up at night, Chuck. More to the point, YOUR astonishing lack of intellect is alarming me.
Don't have such knee-jerk reactions. Actually think about policies, and perspectives, and shades of grey on certain complex matters.
Don't just leap from your chair and exclaim: "those queers are tryin' to destroy the foundational institution of marriage, what's next, the very Republic!.
How is it exactly Chuck, that John and Jim Doe getting married in THEIR house of worship, IMPACT YOU DIRECTLY? Be specific.
Religious rights? No, because the day after John and Jim get married, you can still attend your house of worship as freely as you did the previous week. No one is persecuting you based on your religious beliefs. I am making an eductated guess that the house of worship you attend may oppose homosexual marriage, so rest easy Chuck, you never have to be sitting in the pews and witness such immorality never seen in human history.
@Chuck a word of advice when engaging in intellectual debates, try to avoid ad hominem arguments and ad hominem fallacies. They are very easy to fall back on, but they get you thrown out of a debating class or society.
Also, sometimes avoid scorched earth words such as, well, fuck, asshole, scum, etc.
It reflects poorly on the debater that is utilizing them because it appears to an outside observer that you are substituting scorched earth for evidence to back up your proof (argument).
It happens all of the time, even to a fine gentleman such as yourself. The heat of the moment, and inflamed passions during a debate may have all of us running to the gutter to prop up our proofs. This urge should be mightly resisted at all costs. These debate parameters date back to Socrates. They help keep the debate focused and thesis-oriented.
This discussion is over your head. You seem like the sort of fellow who carries a mirror around with him.
Pity.
I am afraid the discussion is clearly over your head, Chuck.
Why don't you just cross post your responses over at Lew Rockwell's site, they'll love your 'enlightened' views over there.
As to the crude mirror remark, it is undeserving of a response.
Chuck, I discovered an even better website for you:
www.stormfront.org
They would greatly admire your insightful and incisive political commentary over there.
You could make a name for yourself.
If the government is removed from marriage issues, it means that community property, married-filing-jointly tax breaks, and all presumptive rights associated with being the spousal next of kin are off the table. As long as you're fine with those outcomes, then yes, let's let marriage be a purely personal (NOT state-govt!) issue and leave it up to the couple or group to write their own contracts and conduct their own ceremonies.
Personally, I think the privileges of marriage that government upholds should be folded into a more broadly available civil union open to all consenting adults regardless of sexual preference. That means plural unions of more than two are also possible. If you're really in favor of individual liberty, you can't expect people to accept some subculture's dominance over their intimate decisions, whether or not they're a numerical majority.
I am not trying to troll here, but I seriously cannot understand how when gay people want to marry it is a "special privilege", but when heterosexual couples marry it is legal and/or a "right".
Post a Comment