Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul Discourages Evangelical Warmongering, Suggests Federalism Can Stop Spread of Gay Marriage

|

Liberty is complicated.
CBN News

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul got some divergent attention over the weekend following an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network about his political and religious beliefs.

Asked about his position on gay marriage recognition, his comments were a bit different (though not really contradictory) from what he said in a recent National Review interview, where he said he would not object to changes to the tax code so that it doesn't mention marriage.

Interviewed by David Brody, he states:

I think that we've got a long history with marriage. I'm not kind of willing to give up on it yet. The family unit, even above and beyond America and before America – the family unit is something that has come about for thousands of years – we've had a family structure and I think it's an important structure. And not everybody in the country is going to agree with me on that. … Young people seem to be changing their opinions. I think we should still be in favor of what we're in favor of, and that is that there is a traditional family unit and that it's important.

The law is gonna be somewhat different, in the sense that we've always had marriage certificates at the state level. If we keep it that way we can still have the discussion go on without making the decision go all the way one way or all the way the other way. I think right now if we say we're only going to [have] a federally mandated one man, one woman marriage, we're going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people."

I hadn't yet heard federalism actually invoked before as a way of keeping the gay marriage recognition fight going (though obviously state voters have been using it to block recognition for the past decade). I'm curious as to whether he actually thinks polls are going to suddenly reverse themselves on gay marriage in a few years. Why would that actually happen? His comments strike me as a man trying to have it both ways. It feels like he's trying to throw a bone to social conservatives without making any sort of policy commitments. It's also a bit disconcerting to hear a libertarian-leaning conservative recommending the use of the democratic process to restrict liberty. The quote might be problematic in some quarters, and not just among the anti-federalist left.

Paul also got some attention for criticizing some evangelical Christians for being too quick to quick to support military action:

I think when we talk about war, I think Part of Republicans' problems and, frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement, I think have appeared too eager for war. When people come to me and they're lobbying for ratcheting up some bellicose policy – even if it's toward a bad country — I tell them: "When I read the New Testament, and when I read about Jesus, he wasn't really involved in the war of his days." In fact, people rebuked him for not being the king they wanted; they wanted somebody to stand up to the Romans. He stood up in a different sort of way. … We're talking about, blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the warmakers.

You can watch the full 22-minute interview with Paul (and his wife) below. He also talks about the freedom to make bad choices and quotes Frederic Bastiat:

Advertisement

NEXT: Anonymous Targets Israeli Web Sites

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh no! Rand doesn’t support redefining marriage! He has failed the Libertarian Purity Test! Burn him! Burn him now!

    1. The only libertarian purity test on marriage should be separation of marriage and state.

      1. The only libertarian purity test on marriage should be separation of marriage and state.

        So what happens in the meantime? Do we support the status quo, or state that all married people be treated equally?

        1. We dont take a position.

          We spend ALL our efforts on this issue ending marriage licensing.

          1. Why do you want to restrict “positive liberty”?

          2. Likewise, libertarians should focus all their efforts on eliminating the income tax entirely and not take a position at all on whether the rates go up and down.

            Oh wait, no we shouldn’t because that would be fucking retarded.

      2. Based on his quoted remarks, Paul seems to fail this test as well.

        1. let me know when you find that 100% non-failing person.

        2. I think the real problem here is ‘Libertarian leaning’. He is not, and probably shouldn’t be mentioned on here.

      3. No. There should be no libertarian purity test…on marriage or anything else.

  2. Anti-militarist, pro-federalist, yet expressing a preference for the government to favor man/woman marriage. What a fascist!

    1. Supporting having the government favor religious institutions isn’t to his favor. The religious should run screaming away from it too, because what institutions the state gives favors to are the institutions the state starts to control.

      I would think that with the thousands of years of institutional history, the Catholic Church would recognize this, but apparently they think they can make a deal with the devil where he doesn’t end up calling the shots.

      1. I would *love* for religion to be able to take the credit for marriage. But marriage has existed across all sorts of cultures, with all sorts of religions, and even with religions which aren’t technically theistic (eg, Confucianism).

        So religion can’t take the credit for marriage, or for the male/female dichotomy which until quite recently was associated with marriage.

    2. RP can have any personal stance on marriage he wants. He recognizes his personal stance shouldn’t be written into federal law..

      Kudos.

  3. I think that we’ve got a long history with marriage. I’m not kind of willing to give up on it yet. The family unit, even above and beyond America and before America ? the family unit is something that has come about for thousands of years ? we’ve had a family structure and I think it’s an important structure.

    I don’t understand this line of argument. If gay people start getting married, does that mean that straight people are going to stop getting married and having kids?

    1. Opponents of gay marriage have nothing to fear so long as they aren’t in the business of offering goods and services to the public.

      1. I’m enjoying the steamroller of history as it runs over your pathetic bigoted ass. God damn it’s hilarious.

        1. Ask your mother if she’s going to cash the check I left at her nightstand.

        2. Epi,

          I hope the ghost of racist fuck Lester Maddox puts an ax handle upside your head.

          1. And then serves you deep dish pizza.

          2. I’m really not sure what you mean, rob, but it sounds fun.

            1. Which part dont you understand?

              Maddox was infamous for his use of an ax handle to defend his white only restaurant against desegregationists. He used that incident to get elected governor of Georgia.

              He was a racist fuck. But, his liberty to be a racist fuck was ended because he offered goods and services to the public.

              1. Wait, so am I a racist or am I an axehandle? Or both? I’m sorry, rob, I just got up and I’m kind of groggy.

                1. You are the anti-property desegregationist.

              2. In yokeltarian world, tresspassing is apparently a worse offense than aggravated battery.

          3. Lester Maddox was more of an ardent supporter of freedom of association . Check his bio.

            1. Did he ever complain about the laws that mandated segregation by private businesses? Or did he only care when laws were passed that mandated integration? Some ardent supporter of freedom of association. But it does not surprise me that you are defending a racist segregationist fuckhead like Maddox

        3. How very anarchist of you.

          1. I can’t see how such an opinion has the slightest, tiniest thing to do with anarchism, but maybe you can enlighten me, John? Use big person words.

            1. If you want to let the market run these people out of business, more power to you if you think that is what will happen. I don’t care frankly. But if you think it is great to see the left use the state to make these people criminals, make no mistake about it people like Tony and Shreek and their ilk will never be satisfied as long as the government doesn’t crush people they don’t like, then I would say you are pretty much a statist.

              1. Amazing how I said nothing about markets, running people out of business, or government crushing people. At all. What color is the sky on your world, John? What other motivations can you project on me?

                1. If history running these people over is not the market running them out of business, then what is it? What exactly are you enjoying?

                  I’m enjoying the steamroller of history as it runs over your pathetic bigoted ass. God damn it’s hilarious

                  What is that supposed to mean?

                  1. It’s pathetic how you project malice and force into “I’m glad your tired vision of equality is losing”. Because you, of course, would be the first to use malice and force to get your way and cannot understand how someone else wouldn’t.

                    You are the master of projection, John.

                    1. yeah sure Episiarch. You are just above reproach. You would never cheer lead such things. Whatever.

                  2. John, I don’t know what exactly Epi is thinking, but I have the same sentiment, so I’ll explain why.

                    The special perq’s nominally given to married folks that are denied to non-married folks have had widespread political support from very religious persons who wanted the state promote their idea of virtuous living. These are the sorts of people who support laws making alienation of affection a felony, for example (as it is he in the backward people’s republic of MA).

                    These people were making a deal with the devil, and were quite happy so long as they profitted and the people who lived non-virtuous lives were denied such profits.

                    And now their immorality has come back to bite them. The very tool that was supposed to support their goal of subtly and not-so-subtly force people to live virtuous lives are being used to profit people who live sinful lives.

                    Their pain at the prospect of gay marriage is entirely self-inflicted. They don’t suffer any pain from the polygamy practiced in the Sudan or the pederastry in Afghanistan. They could similarly ignore the gay men getting the legal benefits of being “married”. But some busy-body impulse won’t allow them… to… stop… punching… themselves…. in… the… face….

                    Of course, Epi thinks this is awesome, because he delights in watching the pompous hurt themselves.

                    I don’t delight in it, not unreservedly, because it is so pathetically sad.

                    1. Well said, tarran. Pandora’s box was opened a long time ago.

                    2. They could similarly ignore the gay men getting the legal benefits of being “married”.

                      Actually no. They can’t ignore it. That is what this is all about. Once I get a license from the state, every person in the jurisdiction has to recognize my marriage. That is what this is about.

                      That is why the gay left has such a hard on about marriage. They used to be against it. The left hates marriage and always have. The gay left especially hated marriage in the 80s and 90s. Being gay was supposed to be a rejection of all that bourgeois bullshit values. Then in the 00s, they figured out that state sanctioned marriage was a way they could use the state to stick to their enemies and force people to accept their unions.

                      For most activists, the gay marriage issue is about using the government to go after people they don’t like. You really think people like Tony give a shit about freedom and equality and all that? Really?

                    3. You are about a decade off in your timeline.

                    4. They hated marriage in the 1990s. Go back and look at the battles Andrew Sullivan had with them. Before he went insane and started obsessing over Sarah Palin’s vagina, Sullivan spent the entire decade of the 1990s as the pretty much the pied piper of gay marriage. And the gay left hated him for it.

                    5. I lived in the ATL is the late 80s/early 90s, the large gay community there was doing what you said “they figured out” in the 00s.

                      Maybe Atlanta gays were just ahead of everyone else?

                    6. Maybe Rob. Sullivan certainly had a lot of enemies in the 1990s for a community that had embraced gay marriage.

                    7. Actually no. They can’t ignore it. That is what this is all about. Once I get a license from the state, every person in the jurisdiction has to recognize my marriage. That is what this is about.

                      I love how you are confirming my point while claiming to be rebutting it.

                    8. Their pain at the prospect of gay marriage is entirely self-inflicted. They don’t suffer any pain from the polygamy practiced in the Sudan or the pederastry in Afghanistan.

                      They would if polygamy and pederastry were legal and sanctioned by the state there. There is nothing self inflicted at all. Saying is self inflicted is like saying your pain over taxes is entirely self inflicted. If you would just learn to love taxes, you wouldn’t be in much pain would you?

                      Why don’t you guys at least be honest and just admit you like the gays and you hate the SOCONs and for that reason you are perfectly happy to see the gays use the power of government to fuck the SOCONS. That is really all that is going on here.

                    9. Being gay was supposed to be a rejection of all that bourgeois bullshit values.

                      Actually you’re ignoring the fact that the first iteration of the gay rights movement was pretty conservative, but in the heady days of the late ’60s people felt radical change was in the air and people grew tired of waiting for things to get better by meekly petitioning the state. There was a great deal of resentment due to constant harassment by the police via sting operations and raids on drinking establishments.

                      Immediate gains after the Stonewall sucked a lot of the air out of conservative leaning gay political movements, but it doesn’t mean that those were non-existent, just that they were eclipsed by the very loud voices of gay radicals.

                    10. http://radio.foxnews.com/todds…..rsity.html

                      This is what gay marriage is about. The left are masters of using the language of freedom against people. And that is what they are doing with marriage. You can get married now. There is nothing stopping you. But what you can’t do is get a legal warrant from the government to force people accept your marriage. And you can’t use your status as being “married” as an excuse to silence anyone who disagrees with you. That is what the left wants. They don’t give a fuck about marriage.

                    11. Well you can if you’re straight, so 95% of the country can do what you are saying people “can’t do.” Derp.

                    12. Well you can if you’re straight, so 95% of the country can do what you are saying people “can’t do.” Derp.

                      Last I looked, accepting the marriage of straight people didn’t violate anyone’s religion. Freedom is hard. It means letting people say and do things you don’t like. Gay marriage just proves most libertarians really are not up to the challenge.

                    13. Last I looked, accepting the marriage of straight people didn’t violate anyone’s religion.

                      Accepting the marriage of divorced and remarried people violates Catholics’ religion. I mean how many times does this have to come up?

                    14. So being “forced to accept” someone’s marriage only matters if you have a religious objection? What if I think two people just don’t love each other? I mean, my definition of marriage includes love. How dare you force your definition of marriage on me?

                      Fucking hypocrite.

                    15. How dare you force your definition of marriage on me?

                      Which just happens to be the Christian definition and is possibly* in violation of the first amendment.

                      If conservative Muslims were trying to pass a version of DOMA that defined marriage as between one man and up to four women, SoCons would be screaming “Sharia!” from the rafters.

                      *I definitely think it is, but I’m open to good counter-arguments. Haven’t heard one yet, though.

                    16. John, you’re paranoid and should probably seek help.

                      But you’re skirting a good point: this is a conservative movement (as Sullivan would say). It implicitly assumes the value of marriage and the family unit.

                      The fact that conservatives are the last ones to the party is really very baffling, truly. Almost as if they just have a problem with gay people or something and that trumps concern about stable families.

                    17. Yeah Tony, I am real paranoid. There is nothing oppressive about this. Just because they are running priests off of campuses for going against the orthodoxy doesn’t mean they want to use marriage as an excuse to oppress the fuck out of everyone. never

                      The shame Tony is that the gay rights movement got co opted by people like you. That is the shame. What should have been a movement about freedom is now a movement about state repression.

                    18. Who is “they”? Universities can run off any priests it likes (the more the better if you ask me).

                      For most of history being born gay and not hiding it was an offense punishable by permanent ostracism at best. Let me whip out the world’s tiniest violin over your fears of the oppression of bigots.

                    19. “Who is “they”? Universities can run off any priests it likes (the more the better if you ask me).”

                      It’s a fucking private Catholic university you shit-stained twit.

                      That’s like asking that a feminist professor be booted from Smith because she’s more Paglia than she is Dworkin. You know, that whole conflict of whether lesbians should wear their vests buttoned or unbuttoned.

                    20. Private universities can run people off for whatever reason they want?

                    21. I have a problem with Gay people therefore I’m not gay. My marriage is sanctioned by God and we live by his teachings and values. That said “we” have much more urgent matters on our agenda such as saving our republic from the progressive movement. I say let Gays marry and God will sort them out. In the mean time I will not get dragged down into no-win arguments on social issues by the left.

                    22. “These are the sorts of people who support laws making alienation of affection a felony, for example (as it is he in the backward people’s republic of MA).”

                      Just as a reminder, the tort of alienation of affection is difficult to prove:

                      “An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and there are several defenses. To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact on the marriage.”

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..affections

                      So in other words, if you seduce a married person in such a way as to forseeably damage his or her solemn vow of fidelity to a spouse, and lure the person away from their marital responsibilities, with all the social consequences that entails, then yes, you might be liable to alienation of affection.

                      To put this in terms a cosmo can understand, imagine a company luring a contractor away from a contract with a different company, forseeably damaging the contractual relationship.

                      Yeah, no true libertarian would support alienation of affection suits.

                    23. Reply of the day tarran. SPOT ON!

        4. Episiarch| 4.8.13 @ 11:46AM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          I’m enjoying the steamroller of history as it runs over your pathetic bigoted ass. God damn it’s hilarious.

          This is ironic, since the steamroller of history isn’t being terribly kind to anarcho-capitalism either. But you’re fine with it when it’s someone else’s ox being gored (or flattened in this case).

    2. it means that for the entirety of our lives, marriage has held a specific definition. Now, there is a move to redefine that term. Paul seems content with letting states make their own decisions since he’s aware states are not going to get out of marriage altogether.

      1. This is like saying, “For the entirety of our lives, the word fag meant a bundle of sticks, therefore we must outlaw homosexuality.”

        1. if you are going to change the definition of a term, be honest enough to say that is what you are doing. And IIRC, he is on board with letting the states decide for themselves.

          1. So your issue is a semantic one?

          2. Definitions change all the time, but I don’t even think the definition was always what you say it was.

            Just for the sake of argument, yes that’s exactly what we are doing, we are redefining the word marriage. Did your head jsut explode?

            I’m sorry you think “redefining a word” is supposed to be some kind of taboo, argument-winning concept, but it just ain’t.

      2. That has nothing to do with the section I quoted. How is gay marriage going to harm the nuclear family? It’s not like gay guys are going to say, “Well, if I can’t marry a guy, I’ll marry a woman and raise a family.” And even if it did, is that what you’d want?

        1. I would like govt out of marriage altogether but don’t see that happening. I suspect Paul doesn’t, either, and some here are bashing him for not saying that.

          To your question, not going to harm one thing and, frankly, that query was a key reason is my own thought process. We saw gay guys marrying because of societal pressure, only to divorce years later. Not good for anyone. The nuclear family’s biggest harm comes first from govt and second from itself.

      3. At one time, the definition for the word “camera” was “a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto light sensitive film for recording”.

        A few years ago it was changed to “a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording or for translation into electrical impulses”.

        Did this consitute changing the definition of camera, or recognizing that the film was never really part of the definition and we just didn’t notice that back when all cameras used film?

  4. It’s also a bit disconcerting to hear a libertarian-leaning conservative recommending the use of the democratic process to restrict liberty

    We’re fucked sideways if even libertarians think liberty means the liberty to get tax breaks and social and government approval.

    What the hell else is modern marriage? It’s not like gay people are prohibited from fucking or doing anything at all that they can do. How is it really even a question of liberty? What liberty?

    1. That same argument can be applied to many rights, such as miscegenation, segregation, etc.

      “Everyone can do what they want mostly, in the privacy of their homes, so let’s fuck them over outside it.”

      Let’s face it, tax breaks and government approval exist, sorry. So let’s at least apply them with as much equality as possible until they don’t.

      1. Except it was laws against those that were the problem. You couldnt/cant do what you wanted in the privacy of your home, or the privacy of your private restaurant, or etc.

      2. So, to fully realize my 2nd ammendment rights and have gun liberty, do I not just need a militia but an official, government approved and sanctioned militia recognized with special tax status?

        1. If that’s libertarianism, I repeat my assertion we are fucked sideways.

          When praytell did liberty become about equal social approval?

          1. Nothing to do with social approval. It’s equal treatment under the law.

            1. That’s not liberty. We could all be enslaved equally, it doesn’t mean we’re free.

              1. We could all be enslaved equally, it doesn’t mean we’re free.

                In fact, that is the specific goal of many on the left.

    2. Exactly, if as Paul said, we rewrite the tax code to not mention marriage, which I support, what reason is there to have state licensed marriage at all, at that point?

      Marriage licensing is a restriction on liberty. Any libertarian supporting it needs to stop and think some more.

      The only libertarian position on marriage is separation of state and marriage.

      1. The only libertarian position is either contradictory nonsense (separating the state from contracting) or politically impossible utopianism (eliminating marriage)? It must be a day of the week.

        1. No, retard. The libertarian position should be to divorce the contract from the name given to it. Then there’s nothing to argue about.

          1. Nobody is going to go around talking about how he just got civilly unioned. Marriage is the name given to that kind of contract. It’s just a word, it can’t hurt anyone. And eliminating “thousands of years of the tradition of marriage just as gays in the US claim a right to it seems just a little suspect.

            1. They can call it whatever they want, but as far as the government is concerned would be just another contract between two individuals.

              1. An easily broken contract. To death do us part is a verbal portion of the contract and is broken all the time. Marriage means very little these days and it has nothing to do with homosexuals wanting to be part of it.

                1. Marriage means very little these days and it has nothing to do with homosexuals wanting to be part of it.

                  Really? Then why are all compromises that do not include the word dismissed out of hand? Seems to me that the word is what they are after.

                  1. I mean to say that rampant divorce is what makes marriage mean very little. That’s why I follow with homosexuals not being the problem with marriage.

                2. Marriage means very little these days and it has nothing to do with homosexuals wanting to be part of it.

                  bullshit on the second half; this is very much about semantics to many. If not, civil unions would be everywhere, though I still have yet to figure out the substantive difference btwn them and marriage.

                  1. though I still have yet to figure out the substantive difference btwn them and marriage.

                    If I were to draw a Venn diagram, civil union would be a big bubble, and within it would be a circle called marriages that represents the civil unions between couples of the opposite sex.

                    That’s how I view it anyway.

                    1. Marriage is a religious ceremony. That is the difference, IMO.

                      State licensing of marriage is thus a 1st amendment violation (with incorporation by the 14th).

                    2. So you just admitted that you think straight couples ought to be treated as special by the law.

                      I just disagree. I don’t think the law should treat straight and gay couples any differently, and when it does it is in violation of the constitution.

                  2. though I still have yet to figure out the substantive difference btwn them and marriage.

                    If there’s no substantive difference, then why do you oppose gay marriage?

                    1. If there’s no substantive difference, then why do you oppose gay marriage?

                      Opposing the redefining of marriage does not equal opposing legal protections for same sex couples.

                      However… Refusing legal protections without redefining the word suggests that the word is more important than the legal protections.

                    2. However… Refusing legal protections without redefining the word suggests that the word is more important than the legal protections.

                      So what?

                      If they want to be seen as “married” in the eyes of the law as opposed to “civil unioned” why do you care? How does it affect you at all?

                    3. How does it affect you at all?

                      With that question you are committing the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.

                      The burden of proof is on those who want to forcefully change the definition of the word. To them my response is that if the goal is legal protections for same sex couples, that can be accomplished without changing the definition of the word.
                      If that’s not good enough, then quit talking about legal protections, because that’s not what you’re after.

                      I’m just asking for honest discourse.

                    4. There is NO burden of proof required. I simply asked how your rights are violated.

                      Some may want the protections/entitlements afforded by marriage. Others may want “to change the legal definition of the word” to include their group. For no other reason that it makes them happy to feel included.

                      Who cares, on either count? Your rights aren’t violated either way. Unless you are claiming you have a right that word definitions cannot be changed.

                      I get the civil rights act argument. But people using that argument to stop gay marriage is bullshit. If they feel strongly about having the right to serve whom they choose, they should be arguing the repeal of the civil rights act.

                    5. For no other reason that it makes them happy to feel included.

                      Then why don’t they come out and say it? Oh yeah, because it’s not the role of government to make them feel included.

                      So they conflate the issue of legal protections and their feelings. If you don’t give a shit about their feelings, then you’re accused of opposing legal protections. The argument is dishonest to the core.

                      Frankly I’m surprised that libertarians have been sucked in. I thought they (I guess I’m no longer welcome as a libertarian because I’m intolerant, and tolerant people do not welcome intolerant meanies) had better bullshit detectors than that.

                    6. So they conflate the issue of legal protections and their feelings.

                      Can’t it be both?

                      Let me ask a question sarc.

                      If the legal definition of marriage was between a white man and a white woman, would you have any issue with black people asking that the legal definition be changed to exclude the word white?

                    7. And don’t worry sarc. You can still come to the meetings. You are just not perfect…

                      …like me. 😉

                    8. As others have pointed out, we’ve tried the “separate but equal” route before. Didn’t work so well.

                      You keep sticking on the word. Words change meanings over time, sometimes quite quickly. So what if someone is trying to change the definition of the word? You’re acting like we’re drowning puppies or something.

                    9. “I simply asked how your rights are violated.”

                      I seem to recall some photographer who was forced out of business by the state because he refused to photograph a gay couples wedding.”

                      The New Mexico Supreme Court has agreed to review the case of a Christian photographer who refused to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony for two women, the Christian television network CBN reported.

                      The case began five years ago when Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography, refused to do the job because of her Christian beliefs, CBN said.

                      The state Human Rights Commission fined Elane Photography nearly $7,000 saying the company was guilty of discrimination for sexual orientation, a decision upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June, the station reported.

                      Attorneys for the company, Alliance Defending Freedom, appealed that ruling, and senior counsel Jordan Lorence told CBN: “We trust the New Mexico Supreme Court will agree because the government should not be allowed to force the photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience.”

                      http://www.abqjournal.com/main…..-case.html

                    10. As I said above:

                      I get the civil rights act argument. But people using that argument to stop gay marriage is bullshit. If they feel strongly about having the right to serve whom they choose, they should be arguing the repeal of the civil rights act.

                    11. they should be arguing the repeal of the civil rights act.

                      According to someone somewhere in this thread, no one has ever made this argument.

                    12. Holy shit! EAP, and they don’t even have legal gay marriage in New Mexico. QED: legal recognition of gay marriage is clearly at fault there.

                    13. Corrected for Jesse: “a gay couples wedding a same-sex commitment ceremony for two women

                      And in light of this, how much more LIBERTY will New Mexicans have taken away if they ever do have legal gay marriage?

                    14. On net there will be more liberty. Freedom of association is already severely compromised, which is stupid and awful and entirely the fault of non-discrimination ordinances, so that won’t change, but gay couples will have access to an established legal structure that currently requires quite a bit of paperwork to not quite equal marriage. And once the worst bits of DOMA are gone they’ll have access to spousal privilege under the 5th amendment and be able to avoid deportation of foreign born spouses, oh and pass on property without being slammed.

                      My mother does financial planning and got a massive influx of gay couples a while back, I got to help her sort through all of the paperwork that was required to not quite emulate what is generally directly assumed with a marriage certificate. Most of the major financial institutions she works with were not entirely sure how things like domestic partnerships were handled under interstate financial laws.

                    15. Haha, your definition of honest discourse is awesome Sarc!

                      You lump everyone who is in favor of SSM into one category, with one set of motivations, deny the validity of that particular set of motivations out of hand, claim all questions about your position are shifting the burden of proof and then say you’re “just asking for honest discourse.”

                      I love it.

                    16. jesse, I’m simply pointing out the flaw in the argument.

                      Namely that if equal footing under the law can be accomplished without changing the definition of the word, then changing the definition of the word is not about equal footing under the law.

                      Personally I find it comical how emotional some of these libertarians get on this issue, and the raw hatred they spew at anyone who dares to disagree. It’s almost like SSM magically transforms libertarians into progtards.

                    17. It’s less a flaw in the argument and more an elision of a step. Unless the Federal government adopted a policy that all domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriages were accepted on equal footing as defined by states you’re going to run into a separate but equal problem in the courts.

                      The best defense for those who want to protect “marriage” from gays would be to demand that state govs and the feds recognize civil unions universally and leave marriage to the clergy. Because social conservatives thought they were going to win this fight they doubled down and now the war is over the legal term marriage.

                      It could be about “everything but the term marriage” but nobody realistically expects that to hold between people coming to believe that there’s no need for a distinction (as happened in Washington State) or by court fiat because our jurisprudence recognizes the idea that having two sets of accommodations isn’t equal even if they technically have the same enumerated rights.

                    18. The best defense for those who want to protect “marriage” from gays would be to demand that state govs and the feds recognize civil unions universally and leave marriage to the clergy.

                      I’m down wit dat.

                    19. Yeah, I was down with that too in the ’90s and early 2000s, and was mocked roundly by my largely SoCon social group. SoCons thought they had the upper hand and had no interest in compromising. I don’t think they could’ve foreseen the sea change in attitudes towards gays, and lost the opportunity to set terms that were more favorable to them. I think this is a shame because I would’ve much rather seen this play out in a way that didn’t pit my support for religious liberty against my belief that I shouldn’t have to testify against a theoretical husband in a court of law.

            2. Tony, the government giving out marriage licenses is not the same thing as enforcing a private contract

            3. “It’s just a word, it can’t hurt anyone.”

              How about we give you the word “marriage” and you give us back the word “gay”?

              1. The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637 and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning “addicted to pleasures and dissipations.” This was by extension from the primary meaning of “carefree”: implying “uninhibited by moral constraints.” A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.

                It’s yours for the taking, but it has a very long history of indicating those outside traditional sexual norms.

                1. Can’t we just all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home?

                2. I’m fine with that. I also support the state getting the fuck out of marriage, gay unions, plural unions. Live and let live and fuck the state.

                  1. Cliche ammended to now read: Live and Cut Spending.

      2. Here’s where this is going. Men are already starting to shy away from marriage and having children, for good reason. When that trend only increases, as it will, the state will step in with some punitive measures, like an oppressive tax on single males, in what they hope will force young men to marry. When that fails, they will just throw their hands up and say, oh well, moar revenue!

    3. I think you are right that it is not a question of liberty. It is a question of equal protection. I don’t think you will find any libertarian who says that liberty depends on government sanctioning marriages.

      1. If you want to be for equal marriage for whatever other reason you can fathom, that’s your business. What boggled me and prompted my comment is calling it an issue of ‘liberty’.

        There’s no way (that I see) of making it about liberty without redefining liberty to mean something that should be obnoxious to libertarians.

        1. I agree. If it were about liberty, then eliminating marriage as a special legal concept would be bad for liberty, and that is not the case. For me it is entirely about equal protection. Tax law is the biggest thing, particularly when it comes to estate taxes and health insurance. And making it possible for both members of a couple to be legal parents of their child is big too.

          1. “And making it possible for both members of a couple to be legal parents of their child is big too.”

            I keep seeing these comments about children, but they never take into account the of the 2 parents at least one or both parties are not actually a biological parent.

            1. “but they never take into account the of the 2 parents at least one or both parties are not actually a biological parent.”

              but they never take into account *that* of the 2 parents at least one or both parties are not actually a biological parent.

              1. What does that have to do with anything? In adoptive families, neither of the parents are the biological parent.

                1. “And making it possible for both members of a couple to be legal parents of their child is big too.”

                  “What does that have to do with anything? In adoptive families, neither of the parents are the biological parent.”

                  The point is…what is the obsession with 2 people being parents? Why not have 4 parents?

                    1. Georgio, I love you so much! I can hardly wait to order our new baby!

  5. So he’s uncomfortable with gay marriage, but he doesn’t want DC to prohibit it. That sounds exactly like what his dad believes about abortion.

  6. Rand is trying way too hard, again, to please the SoCons.

    1. That too. Cozying up with those idiots is a serious misstep if he really does want to be president.

      1. SoCons are idiots? Wow, that’s harsh. These type of strident, anti-christian comments from many libertarians turn a lot of people away from the Libertarianism, including me.

        1. Did I hurt your feelings? Good. Go away, christfucker.

          1. Isn’t the term “christfag”? Shriek approves.

        2. Socons are idiots, and anyone who kowtows to them is an idiot as well.

          1. This is precisely why the Libertarian Party doesn’t gain more traction. You guys are just hateful as the ones you constantly criticize. And others see it. Talk about echo chambers…

            1. If you think this place is an echo chamber…well, I dont know how to finish that, as its so insane.

              1. Some people abuse Reasonable to turn it into an echo chamber. Others have installed shields of insults and glibness to protect them from considering alternative viewpoints, and are in an echo chamber wherever they go.

                1. Tony and Shriek are the only-permatrolls I have blocked. I dont think they make enough sense to consider their alternative viewpoints.

                  I just wish reasonable worked like incif and nested, so I didnt have to see the responses to them.

                  1. I’m not referring to you, there are others who seem to have half the commentariat blocked.

                    1. I hate the very idea of those filters.

                    2. I used to as well, but during the Neoprimitivist Invasion last year it got so bad I started using Reasonable. I only use them for spammers and wreckers, not trolls or annoying people.

            2. Epi, you hurt his feelings. You should apologize to the little guy.

              1. I’m sorry you’re a douche, Duke. A little douche.

                1. Why is everybody angry with you? WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN UP TO?

            3. Duke, so if the libertarians become SoCons, then that would please you? Then why would you consider becoming a libertarian anyway? We don’t compromise on core principles like team purple does. This is about more than politics.

          2. they may be idiots but they are idiots who vote, usually for the Repub candidate, who is more likely to value liberty than the Dem candidate. Since Paul is not likely to chase the Dem nomination, he has to consider the socons at least a little.

            1. So he can just say ‘the state shouldn’t be involved, or, let the states decide.’ Short and sweet, don’t get bogged down in these wedge issues, it’s exactly what Team Blue wants, and our stupid candidates fall for it every time.

              1. but he IS saying ‘let the states decide.’ I’m willing to take yes for an answer on this one. And he’s on board with eliminating tax breaks for being married, though eliminating teh tax penalty might be more true.

                If he wants to be considered a serious candidate, he can’t pick and choose the questions that will be asked, and questions invariably focus on things like this rather than the economy because emotion is easier than thought. My reading is his answer is a longer version of what you advocate.

              2. it’s exactly what Team Blue wants, and our stupid candidates fall for it every time.
                Yep!

      2. So he’s cozying up to the SoCons by saying: “I think Part of Republicans’ problems and, frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement, I think have appeared too eager for war”?

        And by calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases?

        1. Jesus, Eddie. Are you this way on purpose, or were you suffocated as a child?

          1. OK, I *support* wars of choice and mandatory minimums in drug cases? Does this address your objections?

        2. So he’s cozying up to the SoCons by saying: “I think Part of Republicans’ problems and, frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement, I think have appeared too eager for war”?

          No, he’s cozying up to them by even bringing up these issues. He should just say ‘the state has no business in marriage’, and leave it at that.

          1. Perhaps he doesn’t believe this.

            1. Ok, then he just keeps his trap shut. Instead of wading around in the swamp.

              1. So he should simply write off SoCon votes? Even by avoiding stating his own considered convictions?

                This is no Newt Gingritch with a new love-of-his-life every week. This is no Hillary Clinton winking at her husband’s infidelities. This is a married guy who thinks that marriage is one of the fortifications of a free society. Should he abandon this belief for the sake of writing off the icky SoCon vote?

          2. He should just say ‘the state has no business in marriage’, and leave it at that.

            and if he runs as the LP candidate, no problem. But that’s not the nomination he will seek and perhaps he’s drawing distinctions over which issues he’ll go to the mat and which he won’t. If you’re after a purity test candidate, he’s not likely to be it.

      3. This.

        But, he has of ever becoming president. Whoever the Dems trot out, will be POTUS. It could be Charles Manson, and he will be elected. The sheeple will vote how the MSM tells them to.

        My bet is that it’s Hitlary/Biden vs. Jeb Bush/Christie, or something like that, whoever the GOP establishment thinks is the mort left leaning candidates they can field. Which means once again, that conservatives and libertarians will just stay home, and team blue wins again.

        1. I think you are missing some words there somewhere.

          1. But, he has no chance of ever becoming President.

            I think that’s what was missing.

            1. Unless you’re a clairvoyant, you’re talking out of your ass.

              1. If that were true, most of us would be talking out of our ass, most of the time.

    2. “Rand is trying way too hard, again, to please the SoCons.”

      Rand IS a SoCon.

  7. All marriage licensing is a restriction on liberty, so Scott, one of your basic premises is wrong.

    1. Well, Rand Paul is in favor of licensing on the state level rather than the national level, sooooo …

      1. He is a federal politician. I dont give a fuck what he supports at the state level.

        1. If he runs for my state senator, I might have a problem with that.

      2. I don’t see where he actually took that position.

  8. And someone please explain to me what the particular freedom is that’s at stake in gay marriage. Why does the state have to officially approve of two men co-habitating for it to please libertarians? Because of income tax and property devolution schemes? If the federal government officially blesses gay marriage, then that means they will end up being considered a protected class subject to strict scrutiny. So when you don’t hire a gay couple as your baby sitters, now you are breaking federal discrimination laws. Seriously, you guys need to think this through because to recognize it as a right federally, you open Pandora’s Box and may actually harm liberty in other areas.

    1. This is the new Reason bait and switch: they say that laws favoring married couples won’t be repealed so we have to expand marriage to same-sexers, but turn around and answer complaints such as yours by telling you to get the anti-discrim laws repealed.

      1. Because the anti-discrimination laws are already there and already doing exactly what people like Duke are complaining about, with or without gay marriage.

        1. The licensing laws are already there and are doing what I am complaining about, with or without gay marriage.

          Why are the anti-discrimination laws easier to get rid of than the licensing laws?

          1. Who said they were, jackass?

            1. Ask Tulpa, I was accepting his premise.

              1. But his premise is false.

          2. robc, I’m responding very specifically to Duke’s complaint. The idea that gay marriage invites anti-discrim laws is a red herring, as in many places those laws are already there and already doing exactly what anti-SSM people (rightly) deride.

            1. Yes, and what Im saying is the marriage licensing laws are already there and are doing exactly what anti-licensing people (rightly) deride.

              Tulpa’s point, that you responded to, is that why get rid of one, instead of the other (or actually, both)?

              1. I would love to get rid of both, but I think anti-discrimination laws, with or without gay marriage, a much greater infringement on liberty than is marriage licensing. Like, orders of magnitude greater.

                1. Like, orders of magnitude greater.

                  I think its much closer than that.

                  For example, I think the no fault divorce laws are the most blatant example of anti-contract law in American history.

                  Ive brought this up before, but I would love for at least one reason writer to go on a tirade against no fault divorce.

                  How much more anti-libertarian can you get than that?

                  1. There are a lot of blatant examples of anti-contract law in the US. Family law is most certainly fucked. But anti-discrim affects everyone, not just people who get married.

                    1. Marriage Law affects everyone too.

                  2. No fault divorce isn’t anti-contract. It’s just an at-will provision of the contract.

                    Till death do we part is crazy talk.

                    1. Till death do we part is crazy talk.

                      Then dont include it in your oral contract.

                2. And then there is the anti-liberty aspect of removing the 3rd party from the marriage contract.

                  In many cases, the church is the 3rd party, but the state entirely ignores their contractual rights.

                  Marriage laws are just a giant fount of anti-liberty.

                  1. And then there is the anti-liberty aspect of removing the 3rd party from the marriage contract.

                    How is this anti-liberty? I really would like to know.

                    1. How is this anti-liberty? I really would like to know.

                      How isnt it?

                      To remove a party from a contract that all parties agreed to include?

                      Is this not freakin obvious?

                    2. Freedom of contract.

                  2. In many cases, the church is the 3rd party, but the state entirely ignores their contractual rights.

                    Also, what rights does a church have in a marriage?

                    1. Also, what rights does a church have in a marriage?

                      That would be determined by the terms of the contract.

                    2. So what if a person did not get married in a church. Or are you talking only about church weddings? Are you saying that a contract, once entered into, can never be broken?

                    3. So what if a person did not get married in a church.

                      The it wouldnt apply to them.

                      Or are you talking only about church weddings?

                      Yes, of course. If two atheists want to get married by some random guy, go for it! The only contact would be between each other. Unless random guy has terms for agreeing to perform the ceremony.

                      Are you saying that a contract, once entered into, can never be broken?

                      No. Im saying there are penalties if broken. Often those penalties will be included in the contract. And even if not, there are still damages to be adjudicated.

                    4. Often those penalties will be included in the contract. And even if not, there are still damages to be adjudicated.

                      Are you saying the state should adjudicate and enforce church penalties? Otherwise, I don’t see what the state laws has to do with the church.

                    5. Are you saying the state should adjudicate and enforce church penalties?

                      Courts are used to resolve contract disputes. A church could be a party in a court case. Happens all the time.

                      Otherwise, I don’t see what the state laws has to do with the church.

                      There shouldnt be state laws on marriage, and then there isnt a problem, state is just there in case some files a civil suit over the contract.

                    6. Courts are used to resolve contract disputes. A church could be a party in a court case. Happens all the time.

                      What are the church penalties for divorcing? I am really trying to understand how you think the church is a 3rd party to a contract, and what you would have the state do about it.

                      There shouldnt be state laws on marriage, and then there isnt a problem, state is just there in case some files a civil suit over the contract.

                      Even if there were no marriage laws on the books, how would the church deal with someone who broke its contract?

                    7. What are the church penalties for divorcing?

                      That wasnt exactly where I was going with it, but I was thinking more along the lines that I could see my church requiring counseling before they agreed to a dissolution of the marriage. If after X agreed upon hours of counseling, both parties still wished for the divorce, then the church would sign off.

                      This is just a hypothetical.

                      Even if there were no marriage laws on the books, how would the church deal with someone who broke its contract?

                      File a civil suit? Of course, you are going to get damages in dollars in that case, which is hard to prove and probably something the church isnt interested in pursuing.

                    8. What consideration would the church theoretically turn over in return for it’s stake in the contract?

                    9. What consideration would the church theoretically turn over in return for it’s stake in the contract?

                      Agreeing to perform the ceremony, announce them as married before God, etc.

                      Providing them with acceptance of their marriage within that church community.

                      In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. That is a huge consideration.

                    10. So basically nothing.

                    11. So basically nothing.

                      To you.

                      To a member of the church, those might be valuable. I dont care about the sacrament stuff (Im not catholic), but I consider a marriage to be a 3-party contract between a man, a woman, and God, so having a representative of God there seems like a good thing to me.

                      YMMV.

                3. Just one stark difference between anti-discrimination laws and having the right to have the state call your ceremonial union a “marriage,” is that anti-discrimination laws confer on the offended person a private cause of action. Meaning, you can sue for $$$ if someone discriminates against you if you are within the ambit of the statute.

                  When I was in law school a little over 10 years ago, sexual orientation had not been recognized by the Supremes as a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny, according to their interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th and 5th amends.

                  This begs the question of what’s really at stake if the state does not officially recognize your union as “marriage?” And why do you or they care? If you hate the state, why do you care if it blesses you or not? Is it about filing your federal tax returns as married filing jointly? That’s about the only legal consequence I see of not having the state recognize the union. If you can point to a legal detriment of not having the state recognize your ceremony, then I stand corrected.

                  In other words, I would not be in favor of a law prohibiting a same-sex couple from cohabitating and performing a marriage ceremony. But to have the state confer upon that union a certain legal status, raises a host of new issues such as, can I not hire someone because they’re gay. That’s what I see being the biggest issue at stake. I could be wrong of course.

                  1. 5th amendment spousal privelege and the special status of sponsoring a spouse for immigration are the two that jump most easily to my mind.

                    1. That’s a good point. Particularly if a federal law is passed recognizing same sex marriage. It would probably also create a lot of havoc for IRS which is another reason pro-state libs may not be in favor of a federal recognition after all — wealthy gay couple marries and avoids paying taxes they would have otherwise paid if unmarried.

                    2. Another one: under federal bk code, married couples can file joint bankruptcy petitions; unmarried people cannot.

        2. Wedding photographers aren’t discriminating when they refuse to photograph a sham wedding.

          1. They are in New Mexico (or at least they may be, depending on how it all shakes out in the end).

    2. It’s not fair that same sex couples cannot get their marriage blessed by god government. How can anything exist if it is not blessed by god government? Without the blessing of god government, nothing exists. That is why we need more god government in the realm of marriage. To make it fair. Because, as we all know, the purpose of god government is to make things fair.

      1. You mean like when your god the government enforces your definition of marriage?

    3. While marriage is administered by states, the right to marry has been recognized at the federal level, and there are many federal benefits available to married couples (as defined at the state level). The question is whether states and the federal government have a right to discriminate against couples solely based on their sexual orientation.

      The slippery slope to nondiscrimination laws is a separate issue, just as with the slippery slope to polygamy, etc. Should we have never recognized the right of women to vote based on the possibility that they might some day demand nondiscrimination in the workplace?

      1. the states and feds aren’t discriminating, they are defining a term is it has been defined my entire life and then some. Some states have moved to change that through ballot initiatives and others have seen legislatures do it. Good for them in both cases. But be intellectually honest enough to admit that you want to redefine a term and force that change on everyone else.

        1. I fail to see how redefining a word harms anyone. Does every new edition of the OED accompany mass outbreaks of spontaneous injury and death? What are you talking about?

          I think it was correct for the supreme court to “force” recognition of interracial marriages on everyone, since the constitution requires it. Same goes for this issue. The force equation balances in my favor anyway. You want to “force” your definition on society, and your definition entails treating a class of people unequally.

          1. I fail to see how redefining a word harms anyone.

            Well of course you don’t. I guess you won’t mind when they redefine the terms “mentally ill” and “deviant” to include homosexuality. How could any harm come from redefining a word?

            1. Point taken. So explain what harm has come from redefining the word “marriage” to include gay couples.

        2. Tony be intellectually honest? HAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA!

          1. To be intellectually dishonest, doesn’t that require having an intellect to begin with? Which in this case, would make it a moot point.

        3. First of all, marriage hasn’t always meant one man and one woman. Second of all, where have you gotten this idea that words don’t change and that having their definition change is somehow something “being forced” on you? It’s really fucking retarded.

          1. I didn’t say always, just my lifetime and a bit beyond it. And yes, definitions change; is it too much to ask that those in favor of the change be honest about it.

            1. There is nothing to be in favor or against. Unless you are going to argue that the word marriage isn’t being used to refer to gay marriage, you are not arguing against redefining gay marriage. Definitions aren’t forced on people by other people, they just change.

    4. If the federal government officially blesses gay marriage, then that means they will end up being considered a protected class subject to strict scrutiny.

      They already are a protected class subject to strict scrutiny in many states that do not have gay marriage.

      1. Referring to govt discrimination or the private sector kind?

        1. It depends on the state, but in some cases both. Here in IL, neither the government nor the private sector can discriminate based on sexual orientation, but we have no gay marriage.

          1. That’s one.

            1. New Mexico as well. See link above about the famous wedding photographer case. They were sued for refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony,” not a wedding. I’m not going to look up anti-discrim statutes in every state when I’ve already proved the lack of direct cause-effect relationship between recognizing SSM and making it illegal for the private sector to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

  9. I’m curious as to whether he actually thinks polls are going to suddenly reverse themselves on gay marriage in a few years. Why would that actually happen?

    It happened with gun control. Back in the 1990s there was majority support for a national gun ban; that “trend” faded. Everyone thinks that their movement is the inevitable way of the future but this is not always so.

    It’s also a bit disconcerting to hear a libertarian-leaning conservative recommending the use of the democratic process to restrict liberty.

    Let me know when Rand does this.

    For the umpteenth time: equality is NOT liberty.

    1. As I said last week, I favor equality, except liberty always trumps equality.

      1. Whatever one thinks about equality, that doesn’t change the serious error of Mr Shackford’s point.

      2. Straight people have maximum liberty with respect to marriage. They can marry (for pretty much any reason) or they can choose not to marry.

        Gay people have no liberty with respect to marriage in most of the country. Fixing the equality problem does not negatively affect anyone’s liberty.

        1. You’re begging the question. (Yes I know you love fallacies)

          In your argument in favor of redefining marriage, you assert that gays cannot get married. Well, that implies that they can’t marry each other. That assumes that two people of the same sex are a marriage, making your premise and conclusion as one in the same. That’s the definition of question begging.

          1. Two people of the same sex can get married in certain places. The redefinition has already happened. Sorry. Why don’t you come get me when someone’s liberty has been infringed by any detectable amount as a result of this redefinition?

            1. Switching the burden of proof. You sure love your fallacies.

              1. And you seem to enjoy not making any sense and making penis jokes.

        2. Gay people can marry anywhere in the US, they just can’t get a piece of paper from the govt recognizing their marriage.

          Your freedom of speech hasn’t been taken away when the govt refuses to give you a piece of paper congratulating you for your speech.

          1. Interracial couples can marry anywhere in the US, etc…

            1. Not gonna work on me, as I consider Loving to have been a misguided decision.

              1. You think a state should have the right to imprison people for marrying interracially?

                1. No, I think it’s not necessarily unconstitutional for the state to refuse to recognize marriages it doesn’t want to.

                  Even more so at the federal level, since the equal protection clause doesn’t apply to the feds.

                2. You think a state should have the right to imprison people for marrying interracially?

                  Just like the state currently imprisons people for entering into same sex unions?

                  1. Well that’s only because of court decisions. In 24/7 there’s a story about how some Republicans in the Montana House tabled a bill that would formally repeal a bill on the books that makes homosexuality a felony

        3. Again. With this buffoonery, you have made the following definition implicit:

          Liberty = Government sanction.

          1. Okay let’s make an analogy. Instead of marriage, there is a road. The road was built by government. It was paid for by extracting taxes. You may think this is a violation of your liberty. Fine. But the road exists, is not going away any time soon, and government says only straight people can drive on it. The proximate problem here is not the existence of the road. You guys can deal with that later on, and godspeed to you. Meanwhile there’s a real world to contend with.

            1. Let’s say there is a public road, and currently only sedans are allowed to drive on it. Owners of hatchbacks are understandably pissed. They lobby to get the right to drive on the road, but only if their hatchbacks are called sedans. Anyone who objects to having the word sedan be more inclusive do not want hatchbacks on the public road, and are motivated by hatred of hatchback owners. There is no other explanation.

              1. That’s an air-tight analogy if I ever saw one.

            2. The existence of marriage didn’t require extracting taxes.

    2. You are right that equality is not liberty. And egalitarianism is contrary to liberty. But equality under the law is a completely different thing, and I would argue that it is essential to liberty.

      1. Well, I would say that perfect liberty implies equality under the law.

        But when you have bad laws, equality under the law can actually reduce liberty. For example, if you had a choice between marijuana use being illegal for everyone, or marijuana use being illegal for transsexuals, the latter is better for liberty but runs contrary to equality under the law.

        1. Except that marijuana use being illegal is coercion. Government recognition of your marriage isn’t coercion.

          1. I’m not talking about marriage here.

            1. But you are.

  10. Crazy Rand again, trying to engage people on inside their comfort zone and then draw them towards a more libertarian point of view.

    1. He is failing the hate test. If he doesn’t hate them and tell them to shut the fuck up and vote for him because he knows what good for him, he is just not being principled enough or something.

      1. In order to be nominated, he has to appease the socons by making stupid noises about they gays. But the socons are so reviled right now that appeasing them will make it impossible to win the election. Maybe that will change in 4 or 8 years, but it’s the truth right now.

        1. what non-socons think about socons is irrelevant. They vote and anyone seeking the GOP nod knows that. Tossing them a bone opens them up to hearing the rest of what Paul has to say, the meatier parts.

          1. Yeah, I get that that’s what he’s trying to do (or at least I hope it is). I just think it’ll end up harming him more than it helps.

            1. Politics means you got to date a lot of ugly girls.

        2. Sure he does. And to a lot of people on here that is a terrible thing to do. See Rand is supposed to tell the SOCONs how stupid they are and how they have no right whatsoever to have any say in the political process but since they do they need to shut the fuck up and vote for him.

          1. Or, why can’t he just make a few simple, meaningless comments about these wedge issues, instead of wading around in them until he eventually says something stupid, like seems to happen to most GOP candidates these days.

            He needs to step around these issues as much as possible, and direct everyones attention to the really important issues, like he did with the drones, and the mandatory minimums.

            There is no good reason for him to wade deeply into these wedge issues. They are all traps set up by the dems.

            1. Because he’s not likely to win the nomination without support from SoCon voters, who are leery of libertarians, which many think is synonymous with libertines. He’s proving his bona fides right now.

              1. I agree. This is a move straight out of his dad’s playbook: promoting social conservative legislation at the state level; promoting a libertarian approach to the issue at the federal level; and expressing a rationale that squares the circle.

                And, it’s not necessarily that bad… because when one had free trade and movement or people between polities, there is a substantial pressure for the polities’ governments to permit more freedom; it disincentivizes the plebs moving to other jurisdictions.

    2. We don’t need to preach libertarianism to social conservatives, we need to try to convert the Bill Mahers of the world. Or so Reason seems to be saying.

      1. I thought Reason was telling us to appease Bill Maher, not convert him. That we all poo-pooed that idea, the Jacket is sad. Then again, the Jacket called Maher funny so I don’t know what the fuck is going on there anyway.

        1. Anybody who thinks Maher is funny should watch that fucking movie he was in before he got big, Pizza Man. That should have ended his career in entertainment with extreme prejudice.

  11. This gay marriage thing is interesting, in the light of how the state is going to handle divorces.

    I think what’s going to have to happen, is there will have to be a male gay couple appointed for each gay marriage between 2 females. That way if there is a divorce between 2 women, their pre-appointed male counterparts, can be the recipient of the screwing over.

  12. “It’s also a bit disconcerting to hear a libertarian-leaning conservative recommending the use of the democratic process to restrict liberty.”

    Not sure where he did this (at least not in the quote provided).

  13. Rand is running for president. To be successful he needs to win the GOP nomination. To do that, he has to protect himself from being railroaded in the primaries, a libertarian’s worst nightmare. Once he has the nomination, the socon vote will be his and THEN he can take them for granted. By claiming federalism on the issue, he can win the socons in the primary and at the same time, mute his Dem opponent who wants to make this an issue and would be successful against every other GOP candidate. I happen to think Rand is a Dem’s worst nightmare because they’ll have a much harder time using the wedge issues, which is their bread and butter.

    1. Yeah, I was hoping that was the way it was going to play out, but then I remembered what country they’re going to hold the elections in.

  14. Rand makes a federal level mistake. But it’s not like he was going to primary anyway, so who gives a crap. This won’t affect his Senate re-election bid.

  15. Re: Tony,

    The only libertarian position is either contradictory nonsense (separating the state from contracting) or politically impossible utopianism (eliminating marriage)? It must be a day of the week.

    Those you describe are two positions, not one, since separating marriage from the state is NOT the same as “eliminating marriage”. You should make up your mind.

    By the way, what’s contradictory about separating the state from marriage? Where does it lie the contradiction? I don’t see it. And, please, don’t come up with the question-begging assertion that marriage exists because the state exists.

    […]there are many federal benefits available to married couples (as defined at the state level).

    The problem is with the benefits. I don’t have dogs, and I would certainly consider it unfair and unlawful if the government suddenly provided benefits to dog owners. Same principle applies with marriage.

    The question is whether states and the federal government have a right to discriminate against couples solely based on their sexual orientation.

    That’s not the question. The question is why should the State provide tax-funded benefits to people that simply decided to get married?

    1. It doesn’t make sense to say let’s have marriage with no state involvement. What you have is not “marriage” but couples who may call themselves a name but have no contractual obligations. So you can only mean you want to eliminate marriage, which is something I might get on board with, but it’s not going to happen. Why can’t we have two separate conversations, one about equality under the law and one about the long-term quest to eliminate marriage?

      1. Tony| 4.8.13 @ 1:39PM |#
        “It doesn’t make sense to say let’s have marriage with no state involvement.”

        Shithead, I’m glad you agree with me regarding SSM, but quit screwing up the argument with obvious lies.

      2. Re: Tony,

        It doesn’t make sense to say let’s have marriage with no state involvement.

        That’s an assertion, not an argument.

        What you have is not “marriage” but couples who may call themselves a name but have no contractual obligations.

        Again with the question-begging. Contracts and marriage are not contingent to the existence of the State. A contract is between two people, generated by mutual agreement. The state can only enforce a contract and that only if the two parties agree to arbitration, but as long as the two individuals agree to abide by the agreement they made between each other, the contract exists. Just because the State can play the role of arbiter (an after the fact action) does not mean the state is the necessary sine qua non of contracts.

        So you can only mean you want to eliminate marriage,

        That’s a specious argument. It would be like saying that I want to get rid of bridges because, right now, only the State builds bridges.

        Why can’t we have two separate conversations, one about equality under the law and one about the long-term quest to eliminate marriage?
        Because we’re not having those two conversations!

    2. Studies have proven that people who own pets live longer so Society has a Legitimate Interest in promoting pet ownership via the tax code.

      1. FOR LIBERTY!

        Why shouldn’t I be allowed to own a government approved pet for tax avoidance purposes? IT DOESN’T EFFECT YOUR LIFE!

    3. “I don’t have dogs, and I would certainly consider it unfair and unlawful if the government suddenly provided benefits to dog owners.”

      But you could get the gov’t to call your cats, dogs. Problem solved.

  16. Note the audience. Not like he’s never done this before. This game of trying to appeal to everybody universally (except progtards) has been going on for a while now. He says what his audience wants to hear. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. He won’t be able to separate his audiences once he gets into nationally televised debates.

    1. If he curries enough favor between now and then, he won’t have to. All Rand has to do is to establish himself as an electable, moderate figure who operates within the Overton window, and with his gift for extemporaneous speech and his desire not to step on every political landmine that his dad blundered onto, he won’t have to reconcile all of the different factions within the GOP. Just do the usual Washington two-step and float on to the nomination.

    2. “He says what his audience wants to hear.”

      That he’s against militarism and mandatory minimum drug sentences?

      1. In this instance, that states can define marriage, just not the federal government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.