Rand Paul Says He Believes in the "Historic and Religious" Definition of Marriage Between a Man and Woman; Kentucky AG Won't Appeal Marriage Ruling

Credit: Gage Skidmore/wikimedia

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has said that he will not appeal a recent order issued by U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II directing Kentucky to recognize out of state same-sex marriages. The order made official Heyburn's previous Feb. 12 ruling.

After Heyburn's order was issued Reason asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to comment on the order. Paul's response below:

I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government. It is illegitimate for the federal courts to intrude here.

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) has responded to Conway's comments. From the Associated Press:

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear says the state will hire outside attorneys to appeal a judge's decision granting legal recognition to same-sex couples married in other states and countries.

Head over to Reason 24/7 for recent news on gay marriage. More from Reason.com on gay marriage here.

Comments

[Auric Demonocles]

Did Reason ask Paul his opinions on the historic definition of alt-text?

[tarran]

It's possible that he doesn't consider Alt Text a federal issue.

[Auric Demonocles]

Perhaps. But if Reason doesn't ask politicians the hard questions (and post the responses to Youtube) how will we know?

[Brian D]

Oh boy, religious red meat from Rand Paul for MSNBC to chew on.

[Brett L]

States' Rights AND homophobia!

[entropy_factor]

there really is no such thing as homophobia. I mean seriously, who is afraid of gay people? People might not agree with their lifestyles, but no one is quaking in terror.

[Lord Humungus]

Wartyphobia, on the other hand, is proven to exist. At least for me. *looks nervously around the room*

[BuSab Agent]

There can be no Wartyphobia. A phobia is an unreasonable fear, or a fear response way out of proportion to the danger posed by the object of fear. With Warty, fear is ALWAYS reasonable and no response is too extreme.

[Lord Humungus]

ah - you are correct.

[wwhorton]

Then what the hell does it mean to "agree with their lifestyles?" They aren't asking. It isn't a question. They're gay whether people "agree" or not. It's like not agreeing with brunettes. A person can doubt whether someone IS actually a brunette, but you can't argue about the morality of brown hair.

[Rasilio]

How about the morality of red hair? Can we debate Gingers?

[BuSab Agent]

Everyone knows Gingers don't have souls, so you can do anything you like with them.

[Rasilio]

I'm more worried about what they are able to do to me since I married one

[Norma Jean Almodovar]

Excuse me? Being a redhead does not negate having a soul... on the other hand, being an atheist who does not believe in souls, that might. Stop picking on us red heads. We have MUCH more fun than blondes, and we are smarter, too!
Wonder how Rand Paul feels about atheists getting married, regardless of which gender marries whatever gender? I would have thought that he would put individual freedom first, but like most religious 'libertarians' they put their 'faith' first and freedom second- or third- sadly.

[MamaCass]

Only a ginger can call another ginger ginger. Just ask Tim Minchin

[jesse.in.mb]

"Bobby," a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron [Paul] likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as "homo-phobic," but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It's a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

It's from Dondero's recollections of the Paul campaign so season liberally with grains of salt. I think homophobia is a thing (courts have reduced sentences from murder to manslaughter over gay panic defenses), but the term has been stretched extremely thinly at this point.

[mr simple]

I think it works in a lot of cases that include not just a fear of gay people, but also a fear that gays will turn them or their sons gay or be accepted in society and force them to get new curtains or something. So they don't have to be afraid of individual gay men for the fear to be there.

[entropy_factor]

I just don't buy it. At this point, "homophobia" is a way for the left to challenge everyone else's "manhood". By depicting opponents as fearful, you make them small and weak. So of course, they point to gay people and say "why are you afraid of them? They are people like you!". And then it makes anyone who disagrees with the concept of homosexual marriage look irrational and overly afraid.

I kind of see that tactic with the left's attack on gun ownership... "what are you afraid of?" is a common challenge. See: Jim Carrey's "Cold Dead Hand" video.

[jesse.in.mb]

there really is no such thing as homophobia

You're making a rather sweeping claim that homophobia is non-existent and that the emotional response to gays maxes out at "People might not agree with their lifestyles." Considering I've seen my mother go into a panic* when she thought I was going to introduce my younger brother to my boyfriend at the time, I'm going to say you're going to have to work hard to convince me.

*Seriously. Panic. Wild-eyed, stood up like she was going to grab him and drag him back in the house and demanded to know where I was taking him. He was in his mid-teens at the time.

[Clich? Bandit]

Jesus H Tits Jesse...that sucks. Have things calmed down since then?

[jesse.in.mb]

Yeah. Things are pretty normal now. My mother has actively snubbed exes that I've tried to introduce her to and if I ever get married there's going to be the awkwardness of her invitation getting lost in the mail, but we get along really well on most fronts.

She has a visceral, emotional response to gays, but we cognitive dissonance the shit out of our relationship and get along pretty well. I think partly because she's waiting for "Jesus to come into [my] heart and heal [me]" (real quote).

The irony of the story is that I was just taking my little brother outside to show him how to check the fluids on a car and top them off as needed.

[mad.casual]

You're making a rather sweeping claim that homophobia is non-existent and that the emotional response to gays maxes out at "People might not agree with their lifestyles."

What you describe better approximates hysteria than phobia.

My brother-in-law came out to my wife. The first words out of his mouth after saying it were; "Don't tell [your husband]." When my wife asked, "Why?". He said "Because he won't let me visit my nephews."

My wife is a healthcare professional and is neither particularly religious nor anti-homosexual, but his statements made her absolutely irate.

Funny thing is, he would've had two advocates behind him and nephews to visit after his parents overreacted to his sexuality. Instead, his homophobia-phobia did a good job of just outright alienating everyone in his immediate family.

And I've been through this, "I can just tell who will accept me and who won't." drill more than once.

[jesse.in.mb]

And I've been through this, "I can just tell who will accept me and who won't." drill more than once.

You might want to consider you're putting something out there if you're getting repeat business on that front.

What you describe better approximates hysteria than phobia.

Noted. I'll tell the doctors to stop using "photophobia" while they're straightening these things out.

[wadair]

That's the old, "You must be a racist if somebody thinks you're a racist" response.

[mr simple]

And then it makes anyone who disagrees with the concept of homosexual marriage look irrational and overly afraid.

It's not the word homophobia that makes them look like that.

[mad.casual]

Homophobia is a thought-terminating clich&eactute;.

This tends to be true in at least one facet of just about every "trait" we cram under the CRA; if you point out that far more black people commit murder and murder more black people than white people do, assertions of racism nullify your argument, regardless of the truth.

[Ann Cap]

And if you listen to their reasons for opposing gay marriage it's that they're afraid that it will cause the downfall of human civilization (an irrational fear) or religion (which is irrational).

[mad.casual]

And if you listen to their reasons for opposing gay marriage it's that they're afraid that it will cause the downfall of human civilization (an irrational fear) or religion (which is irrational).

IDK, plenty around here seem to think it creates yet another pointless division for the bean-counters to micromanage. More still, like the Pope, don't cite it as the sole source but certainly consider it a bad sign or just a bad idea.

Besides, the reasons to support marriage (gay or straight) are irrational to begin with as marriage carries a hefty dose of irrationality intrinsically (rather it was more rational in contexts which no longer exist). Which is why myself and others think corporate contract-style "rights"-sharing or no marriage at all is the way to go.

BTW- How does civilization end? I like to be specific when mocking the heathens.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

I don't believe unions or a minimum wage law should exist and I think you're an idiot. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with politics.

[AlmightyJB]

I think he's pro-life as well. Burn him at the stake!

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

As an advocate of free-market abortions with no subsidies or price controls I would agree with a much more moderate version of your comment.

[humblebrag]

poetry

[Tony]

He's not trying to out-Jesus anyone, he's just trying to reach a minimum Jesus threshold, right?

[Brian D]

Exactly, much in the same way Obama did by sitting attentively in front of Rev. Jeremiah Wright all those years.

[John C. Randolph]

Well, except for the fact that Rand is actually a believer.

-jcr

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

I think Obama is also a firm believer in what Wright preached.

[Tony]

Which was quite a feat from all the way over in Kenya.

[DesigNate]

It's totally racist to call Chicago Kenya. I think.

[Brett L]

More proof that sexual orientation is a de facto protected trait under the CRA/ADA legislation. Rand's opposition to the CRA protections would lead to this logical extension. Although he's as wrong, IMO, as someone who views the "historical and religious view of marriage" as opposing miscegenation. Not that I think Sen. Paul holds that particular view. Just that its a poor argument, thoroughly lost.

[sarcasmic]

Although he's as wrong, IMO, as someone who views the "historical and religious view of marriage" as opposing miscegenation.

That's the first I've heard of that. Though it looks like a great excuse to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being racist.

[jesse.in.mb]

That's the first I've heard of that.

Of folks using scripture to justify anti-miscegenation?

It still exists. Take some "Occidental Christianity for Preserving Western Culture and People" to the face: A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism

Here I was just looking for something about the Mark of Ham, and I found the cray-cray jackpot.

[sarcasmic]

People have used scripture to justify lots of things. Doesn't make those things religious.

[Warty]

Of course it makes those things religious. What do you think religion is?

[jesse.in.mb]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

--Leon M. Bazile (the trial judge that kicked of Loving v. Virginia)

So we can discount sincere religious belief in stupid things once they're obviously stupid to almost everyone as merely justifications? Shitty justifications of parents can easily become the sincere belief of the next generation.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Don't forget the amicus brief filed by all the Catholic bishops in the Jim Crow states, urging the Supremes in Loving v. Virginia to affirm a right to opposite-race marriage.

[Calidissident]

I don't think Jesse was trying to say that all Christians opposed interracial marriage, just that many did (and some still do) have a sincere religious belief that interracial marriage was/is forbidden by the Bible.

[jesse.in.mb]

A dog used to beatings will flinch at a hand coming to pet it.

[jesse.in.mb]

A dog used to beatings will flinch at a hand coming to pet it.

[mad.casual]

Shitty justifications of parents can easily become the sincere belief of the next generation.

This is true, I've seen it several times recently and it doesn't even take a generation for irrational arguments to suddenly seem reasonable;

"If Liz Taylor can have seven husbands, why can't a man have one?"

"If Britney Spears can get married and divorced in a weekend, why can't a homosexual get married?"

"If infertile couples and inmates are allowed to marry, why not homosexuals? A marriage is a marriage/all marriages are equal."

[sarcasmic]

To clarify, I think of religious as going to the scripture for guidance, as opposed to combing through it to find justification for your hate.
Kind of like how science is a quest for answers using the scientific method, while climate "science" is a reverse engineered justification for predefined policy.

[Calidissident]

By that definition (adjusting "hate" to "beliefs" or "lifestyles"), a lot of seemingly religious people aren't religious. And there are plenty of religions without scripture, so I don't see how that serves as a useful definition.

[sarcasmic]

By that definition (adjusting "hate" to "beliefs" or "lifestyles"), a lot of seemingly religious people aren't religious.

I would agree with that. Many people go to church because it's what they are supposed to do, not because they are religious.

And there are plenty of religions without scripture, so I don't see how that serves as a useful definition.

If you look up a bit, you'll see I was responding to a comment specifically about scripture.

[Calidissident]

"I would agree with that. Many people go to church because it's what they are supposed to do, not because they are religious."

I think that's a different thing. Many of the people who think interracial marriage is against the Bible are pretty devout and not all are just casual church-goers that don't like people of different races and thus try to use the Bible to justify it.

[Heroic Mulatto]

How does that dude explain Moses marrying a Cushite? And when he came back, Moses's siblings, Aaron and Miriam, didn't have very nice things to say about Moses marrying a Black woman, so God punished them. And by "punished", I mean God gave Miriam and Aaron fucking leprosy for talking shit about Moses's interracial marriage. You can't get much clearer than that.

[Brett L]

Nobody said they were right. Just that they had tortured a text into saying what they already knew it would say before they read it. Think of it as proto-Deconstructionism if it makes it more philosophically tolerable.

[jesse.in.mb]

Advocates of miscegenation will often make claims that Scripture does mention, and even encourages, interracial marriage. They will sometimes cite the example of Moses and his Cushite wife of Numbers 12, among others. It is not the intention of this article to cover all such alleged instances; but suffice it to say that such passages have not been utilized to encourage miscegenation until very recently in church history, and that other sources have well explained how they do not.

See, HM, they've got you covered with some dazzling hand wavery.

I wish I were home right now so I could climb directly into a shower after wading through that website.

[SMG]

The reference to Tzipora being a cushite was the bibles way of commenting on her great beauty. And Aaron and Miriam were discussing the correctness of Moses not living with his wife.
The reason Moses was not living with his wife was that at any time he could have prophecy and would not have time to purify himself.
This is then demonstrated to Aaron and Miriam when they receive prophecy at that moment and must first purify themselves as they were living with their spouses.
Miriam gets leprosy for bringing up the subject and speaking ill of Moses to others even though her intentions were good.

[Some call me Tim?]

What's Rand's view on the historical placement of polygamy?

[mad.casual]

I second this idea.

I'm 99% sure the answer is along the lines of, "Whatever they wanna do in Utah..." but still. Don't wanna put words in anyone's mouth.

[prolefeed]

Which they in Utah? The politicians and mainstream Mormons, or the tens of thousands of poly couples living under the radar?

[Jan S.]

Well, since polygamy involved more than two people, technically they're not "couples."

[PaulW]

But they could be a couple of couples.

[gimmeasammich]

I prefer the term "gaggle," "parade," or "murder" myself. I suppose "parliament" or "skulk" would be acceptable.

[mad.casual]

I suppose "parliament" or "skulk" would be acceptable.

How about clusterfuck?

[gimmeasammich]

It's probably the most accurate.

[Tonio]

What's Rand's view on the historical placement of polygamy?

AFAIK, he hasn't ever addressed that directly. However, I'm not an expert on his speeches and writings.

However, the paragraph which Feeny quotes above seems as if he's unaware of the historical prevalence of polygamy as a form of marriage.

[Ann Cap]

I wish Reason had followed up by asking if he believes in traditional concubinage.

[prolefeed]

The irony here is that a member of the federal government is ordering the state of Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages, while the federal government continues to refuse to recognize them, IIRC, for IRS income tax filing and so on.

"Do as we say, not as we do."

[mad libertarian guy]

That changed. The FedGov does recognize them now.

Where have you been?

[Tonio]

I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage.

Uh, who's history and who's religion? Polygamy (one man, multiple woman) has been common throughout human history, including the ancient Hebrews.

[VicRattlehead]

The historic definition of marrying businesses together to avoid tax from the king?
I would love to see legalized polygamy and an end to intervention by statists, however in this day and age would it not be possible for a man who has multiple wives that may have wives or multiple husbands with multiple wives and husbands of their own, since no one group could be discriminated against due to the 14A could the entire population of entire counties become intermarried if they so choose?

[Brandon]

Why not?

[VicRattlehead]

no legal argument not to, just would be confusing as hell

[Response]

Classic polygamy (when husbands have multiple wives) is generally frowned upon in growing societies because that generally leaves many younger/poorer men alone and disenfranchised. You get enough of those together and you have rebellion or revolution. In mature societies, it becomes an issue of taxes.

Personally I think that society has progressed enough to the point where there are enough women to handle the few men who are financially able to marry multiple wives. Likewise there will be women that could marry multiple husbands which would help equalize the numbers. But if you start seeing a significant number (who knows however much that may be?) of men without access to women then trouble will come.

Ok, ok, I'll put down my crystal ball. And yeah I have no citations to provide.

[Jan S.]

Actually, it was quite crafty of him to say "historic and religious definition of marriage" rather than "biblical." He'd have been eaten alive.

[Dave Kozlowski]

The disconnect is disappointing. We don't want government interfering with our freedom, but we want local government to be free to tell us who we are forbidden from marrying?

[sarcasmic]

not legally recognized != forbidden

[Cytotoxic]

Except that multiple states have constitutions that do just that.

Also, libertarianism = legal equality

[sarcasmic]

People are going to jail for entering into forbidden gay marriages in the States?

I could see that happening in Nigeria, but the States?

I was completely unaware of that! Thank you for clearing that up!

[marshaul]

Right, because jailing people is the only form of state-sponsored aggression.

It's definitely not aggressive for the state to forcibly prevent the fulfillment of a voluntary contractual arrangement.

Your bias is showing, sarcasmic.

[sarcasmic]

There is a distinction between not legally recognizing something, and that something being forbidden.

Are you distinction-challenged like our friend Tony?

[Tony]

You live to find excuses for denying freedom to people. Typical libertarian I guess.

[sarcasmic]

You would say that Tony, considering that you believe force is freedom and liberty is tyranny.

[thom]

People are going to jail for entering into forbidden gay marriages in the States?

People are having their property confiscated through excess taxation because the state considers their marriage to be forbidden and refuses to recognize it.

[sarcasmic]

You've never heard of the marriage penalty? Look it up.

[thom]

The Supreme Court case was based on the claim of a woman who incurred significant tax penalties because her marriage was not recognized.

[PaulW]

There are many more important factors that lead to excess taxation, namely the amount of money you actually make.

[Lord at War]

thom-

My sister had 12.4% of her earnings confiscated through "excess taxation" known as Social(ist) (In)Security every day she worked for almost 30 yrs. I wanted to "marry" her 6 months before she died in 2005, so that these benefits would accrue to her family.

The only "gay" person who supported this plan was my sister...

[mad.casual]

libertarianism = legal equality

Wrong!

legal equality != equality

libertarianism = free to be different.

legal equality != free to be different.

libertarianism != legal equality

Q.E.D.

[LynchPin1477]

You lost me somewhere around the beginning...

[CampingInYourPark]

forbidden from marrying

You can marry a turnip in Kentucky

[Clich? Bandit]

Octonauts Sound OFF!

[mad libertarian guy]

That's a fucking terrible show.

[R C Dean]

The disconnect is disappointing.

Only if you think getting a good result trumps complying with the Constitutional scheme for separation of powers and a federal government of limited, enumerated powers.

[prolefeed]

The issue here is whether or not a state refusing to recognize same sex marriages is violating the Constitutional prohibition of unequal protection under the laws in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Under this, arguably a federal judge can't order a state to recognize marriages, but it can order them to either recognize all marriages, straight or same sex alike, or none of them.

[Brett L]

Except that they wouldn't have had to pass the CRA of 1964 if the 14th Amendment applied in this way.

[Calidissident]

The CRA (at least the sections relating to state and local government abuse) shouldn't have been necessary if the 14th amendment had been properly enforced.

[Brett L]

The CRA enjoins all actors in the state, public and private, to positively provide goods and services to protected classes of people. That is well beyond the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equality under the law. The Montogomery Bus rules should have been struck down, the Wooworth's segregated lunch counter would be okay under a strict 14A. The CRA prevents Woolworth's restriction on serving protected classes as much as the city bus company.

[Calidissident]

The CRA isn't a singular law that does one thing, it has several different sections that do different things, which is why I put in parenthesis that I was referring to the sections relating to state and local government abuse.

Also, Jim Crow generally required segregation by private businesses, and those laws were rightly struck down or repealed. Sure, some businesses would have discriminated regardless, but they didn't even have a choice.

[Bill Dalasio]

...but we want local government to be free to tell us who we are forbidden from marrying?

But they do already. Different states have different age of consent laws for marriage.

[marshaul]

So what? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right?

[Bill Dalasio]

Except no one has ever treated the latter as some sort of grave injustice of age discrimination. Instead, it's been regarded as a normal part of federalism.

[Seamus_Cameron]

Well, at least he isn't pandering to the faggot lobby like everyone else.

[sarcasmic]

Since when did bundles of sticks get their own lobby?

[~Knarf Yenrab~]

Fasces lobbyists have been working overtime in DC for a while.

[thom]

Fucking big tobacco.

[Some call me Tim?]

Every time I see that word, I think of this scene from Louie:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c98_1335173442

[Bill Dalasio]

By the way, is ANYONE surprised it's Feeney pulling out this one?

[Jon Lester]

Just once, I'd like to see a bachelor/ette candidate assert that they feel wise for not marrying.

[VicRattlehead]

Andrew Cuomo
Governor of NY.... until november

[Paul.]

Done:

When asked by Vogue if [Vonn] would get married again she was very stern with her answer, "No, thanks! I am definitely not getting married. To anyone."

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/.....interview/

Safe for work, but damn...

[Paul.]

I mean, she's not a 'bachelor/ette candidate' if you're referring to some kind of reality tv thingy...

[mgd]

Rand Paul Says He Believes in the "Historic and Religious" Definition of Marriage Between a Man and Woman

In other words, he's taking another step towards getting ready for the GOP nomination.

[prolefeed]

... while setting himself to lose a few percent of swing voters that he needs to win the general election.

[Rasilio]

Actually probably not.

On a personal level the Pauls have always been fairly conservative christians. They also just happen to believe in not imposing their personal religous beliefs on others through the government, especially at a federal level.

[Cytotoxic]

They also just happen to believe in not imposing their personal religous beliefs on others

He said he's against gay marriage.

[CampingInYourPark]

He said he's against gay marriage

Are you implying that his words are an imposition?

[Rasilio]

Stating "I oppose X" does not in any way shape or form mean "I will seek to use the police power of the state to see to it that X never occurs".

Yes Rand is against Gay Marriage and while he is wrong wrt this ruling for reasons I describe below his relegating it to the states guarantees that Gay marriage will always be legal somewhere in the US, that is hardly the same as say a Rick Santorum who would seek a Constitutional amendment defining a marriage as 1 man 1 woman.

[marshaul]

Stating "I oppose X" does not in any way shape or form mean "I will seek to use the police power of the state to see to it that X never occurs".

No, but being a politician and failing to oppose the state's use of said police power does.

[PaulW]

I think he said what he is for, not what he is against. Possibly a useless distinction, but a distinction none the less.

I think if you get pregnant you should have the baby, doesn't mean I want to make all abortion illegal.

See what I mean?

[OneOut]

So did Obama until a need for campaign contributions forced him to "evolve" on the issue.

[Tonio]

On a personal level the Pauls have always been fairly conservative christians.

But he didn't say that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He took the coward's way out by ginning up some nonsensical appeal to history and authority. And he got the history part wrong. So, yeah, total pandering to the SoCons, and loss of the rationalist swing vote.

[SIV]

loss of the rationalist swing vote

If you agree with Paul enough to vote for him it wouldn't be very rational to not do so over a matter of opinion that is irrelevant to the office.

[Tonio]

Thanks for telling me how to think, SIV.

For me, ahistorical statements are evidence of irrationality or dishonesty, and either one is grounds for me to take my vote elsewhere.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

For me, ahistorical statements are evidence of irrationality or dishonesty, and either one is grounds for me to take my vote elsewhere.

Let us know when you find this sufficiently rational and honest individual running for office.

[Juice]

Like where?

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Juice, that is my point exactly.

[CampingInYourPark]

Yeah, except everybody knows exactly what he's talking about so the hysterical reaction looks...hysterical.

[Marshall Gill]

total pandering to the SoCons, and loss of the rationalist swing vote.

So let's see. 1,000,000-5= 999,995 net votes gained?

Without addressing the moral or philosophical merits of his position, as a political position this seems quite rational to me.

Taking all of his current positions as they appear today, would you, personally, vote for Rand as a member of Team Red, if he changed his position on this single issue? There probably are a very small minority who would but this would pale compare to not energizing the base.

[marshaul]

Right. This is why the GOP has been winning elections so easily of late.

[Lord at War]

Obama got elected twice on the exact same position.

[Robert]

Nonsensic appeal to hx & authority? That very kind of thing is what judges routinely do in adjudicating contracts.

[CampingInYourPark]

In other words, he's taking another step towards getting ready for the GOP nomination.

If you consider repeating the same thing he's said since being in the political realm "another step", this is true

[prolefeed]

Another reaffirmation, then. He can change his mind and quit saying things he previously said at any time.

Maybe he thinks he needs this to win the primary, but this is clearly gonna cost him net votes in the general.

[CampingInYourPark]

Another reaffirmation

It's redundancy all the way down

[Rasilio]

Or maybe he cares more about his personal moral convictions than being President.

One of the most remarkable things about the Pauls has been their moral and intellectual consistency. They are not perfect libertarians but to this point at least they have been morally consistant.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

As someone who believes very strongly in marriage equality for Gay couples, I need to point out that the federal government has complicated the issue more than anyone. While it is true that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, there are 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities (according to the Government Accounting Office) that the federal government automatically bestows on married couples. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security. So it simply wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married if they move to Kentucky.

Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. Gay couples, however, are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

The only way marriage can be a "States Rights" issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

[Paul.]

1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities (according to the Government Accounting Office) that the federal government automatically bestows on married couples.

It was always about the money.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

No, Paul. It's about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment. It is no more about the money for Gay couples than it is for Straight couples.

[Paul.]

You missed the point, Charles.

If the federal gives out 1,138 goodies to a special class of people, it's not about equal treatment under the 14th amendment, it's about giving 1,138 goodies to a special class of people. What, single people left out in the cold?

It's either equal treatment for married people, or equal treatment for EVERYONE. Which is it?

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

It is indeed about equal treatment for married people, whether the married couple in question is Gay or Straight.

[Paul.]

Does that not begin to sound a bit like something being about equal treatment for white people, or christians, or other sectors of society?

To be consistent with the 14th amendment, the federal government needs to divest itself from the marriage business, period.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

If you think the fact that the federal government grants 1,138 legal benefits and protections to married couple is discriminatory toward single people, you should work to get the government out of the marriage business. Until that happens, there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

[Paul.]

If you think the fact that the federal government grants 1,138 legal benefits and protections to married couple is discriminatory toward single people, you should work to get the government out of the marriage business.

Thank you.

Until that happens, there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

Correct.

I remember listening to NPR when I heard this 1,138 benefits number. I learnly drove off the road. As a longtime supporter of gay marriage, I was stunned, and questioned how we got to a place where married couples got 1138 goodies, privileges and rights from the government as a protected class.

[Marshall Gill]

If you think the fact that the federal government grants 1,138 legal benefits and protections to married couple is discriminatory toward single people, you should work to get the government out of the marriage business.

And since you are not advocating this, your position is not about Liberty.

Discrimination against single people, well we can't do anything about that. Discrimination against SSM? No Constitutional justification? Perhaps your arguments about discrimination would hold more weight if you did not discriminate while you made them.

[Paul.]

Discrimination against single people, well we can't do anything about that. Discrimination against SSM? No Constitutional justification?

I admit to being nit-picky here. I am essentially making the libertarian purity argument-- which isn't going anywhere. The federal government MUST continue to discriminate between single people, domestic partners (not the legal definition) and married people.

What we've ended up with is a government which bestows rights, privileges and benefits upon constituencies.

Charles, to his credit is making the pragmatic argument. I'm making the philosophical one.

[Calidissident]

"And since you are not advocating this, your position is not about Liberty."

While I can't speak for him, he all but explicitly states that he would support that as an ideal solution.

[mad.casual]

If you think the fact that the federal government grants 1,138 legal benefits and protections to married couple is discriminatory toward single people, you should work to get the government out of the marriage business.

He is. Rand Paul as well. You on the other hand, by invoking the Constitution, seem to be advocating it as a Federal issue.

Show me in the Constitution where we lock up drunk people (including the one's flying off to get married in Vegas), until that happens, there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying drunkards the same legal benefits that sober people have always enjoyed.

[Azathoth!!]

Single people aren't left out in the cold.

The 'goodies' are for doing something, not for simply being. There are 'goodies' handed out by the government to people who engage in various activities--provided those activities are thought to benefit the local state or federal government.

There are benefits--'goodies' for buying a home, buying a car, owning a business, having a kid.

Activities. See?

[Paul.]

So then you see just how deep (and how wrong) the rabbit hole of government goodies, goes, right?

Single people aren't left out in the cold.

I mean, this is veering into tortured logic. Gay people can get straight married if they want to.

[Azathoth!!]

When most 'goodies' refer to me keeping a bigger slice of the money I earn, no. Anything that removes a bit of the government hand from my pocket is a good thing.

And to actions. There is no 'tortured logic' in saying 'if you do X, you get Y, if you don't do X, you can't get Y'

Getting married is an action, it results in things happening that do not happen to people who do not undertake this action.

Being single is the default.

[generic Brand]

There are benefits--'goodies' for buying a home, buying a car, owning a business, having a kid.

Activities. See?

And now with the ACA ruling, reverse-benefits can be handed out for non-activities! Isn't government grand???

[Fr?ulein Nikki]

Don't worry, Charles, Paul thinks it's about the money for everyone.

[PaulW]

He is making a point that is obviously over your head.

But you keep using your feelz, it give you the higher moral ground, eh?

[wwhorton]

It's absolutely about the money BECAUSE of the 14th. If benefits accrue to a couple because they become married, then the issuers of those benefits, i.e. the federal and state governments, have to qualify what defines a marriage. The argument has never really been about forcing a charismatic evangelical church in Biloxi to marry two drag queens, it's been about requiring any marriage performed anywhere to be recognized everywhere else for legal purposes. That's it.

So if you take the money out of the equation, you remove 90% of the contention. Yes, there will be people who want the state to proactively enforce their particular religious beliefs still. But once you move marriage back out of the sphere of government then the definition is left up to private groups and individuals. And, sure, you'll have people who don't recognize each other's marriages. But that's the status quo with regard to religious and cultural beliefs as it is, e.g. "real" Catholics/Christians vs. "Sunday" or "Easter" Catholics/Christians, etc.

[Rasilio]

Not all of those benefits are monetary.

[Tonio]

It was always about the money.

Which is un-libertarian, how, exactly?

Also, just saying that doesn't prove your point.

[LynchPin1477]

I'll admit that you're user name made me a little suspicious, but this is actually a pretty good comment.

[~Knarf Yenrab~]

I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage.

It's nice to try to appeal to the SoCons who will end up going for Cruz in the primaries, Senator Paul, but it'd be just great if you could follow your dad's lead and say that no level of government should participate in marriage outside of the enforcement of contracts.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

But I WOULD like to reassure Rand Paul that, for all his rhapsodizing about "traditional marriage," nothing about "traditional marriage" is changing as it applies to couples who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). For Straight couples nothing is being redefined. The marriage equality movement was never some sinister plot to make homosexuality compulsory. The human race will always be predominantly heterosexual, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change when Gay couples tie the knot also.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

It's like Andrew Sullivan once wrote: "You can have lots of sex without marriage. And you can have a marriage without much or any sex. But you cannot have a meaningful marriage without love and commitment."

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"The marriage equality movement was never some sinister plot to make homosexuality compulsory."

No, but it's about compelling people to recognize it. If they don't (bakers, for instance), it's fines for you!

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

Same-sex marriage is a completely separate issue from service discrimination.

[Paul.]

"You can have lots of sex without marriage. And you can have a marriage without much or any sex. But you cannot have a meaningful marriage without love and commitment."

Was Andrew Sullivan pontificating about the meaning of marriage, or the Federal Government's role in recognizing it?

[Rasilio]

Paul is both right and wrong here.

He is correct in that gay marriage is an issue for the states, Federal Judges should have no powers whatsoever to rule on whether or not a state must (or must not) perform gay marriages.

However that is not what this ruling is about, this ruling is about recognizing marriages performed in other states. Via the combination of the equal protection and full faith and credit clauses of the Constitution I do not see any way a state (or the Federal government) can refuse to recognize a marriage which was legally performed in any other state.

Given the equal protection clause it is also entirely proper for a judge ruling on the a question of gay marriage to force the state to accept an either/or proposition. Either grant gays the right to legal marriages or end all state legal benefits of marriage.

Simply saying that marriage belongs to the states does not grant them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want with the institution.

[Tonio]

Federal Judges should have no powers whatsoever to rule on whether or not a state must (or must not) perform gay marriages.

Except for that pesky equal protection thing.

[thom]

I don't know. I'd be fine with Maryland passing a law to refuse to recognize drivers licenses issued in New Jersey.

[Paul.]

Not every state recognizes my conceal carry permit.

[OneOut]

Bingo

[entropy_factor]

I think we waste time having this battle. It is playing right into the left's hands. They paint everyone except themselves as hateful bigots and well, no one wants to associate with that. I really think that my own moral opinions (which do not agree with gay marriage) should not necessarily be imposed on the society at large. If they want to contract with each other, the govt shouldn't prevent it. But the govt *also* shouldn't uphold legal (read:tax) incentives for straight couples getting married.

Simply keep the govt out of all marriage contracts, and I then have the right to not get married to another guy, and a gay person has the right to be treated the same legally by the govt. Everyone is happy. Pretty simple, but instead we get stuck prosthelitizing either side's opinions to an increasingly hostile audience. We (on either side of the issue) won't win that fight, ever.

[LynchPin1477]

Everyone is happy

The problem is, not everyone is happy in that case. Libertarians would be happy, but most married couples, left or right, will raise hell if marriage benefits are taken away. That is the political reality that this debate exists within, at least for now.

[LynchPin1477]

Personally? Probably not. Not unless he tries to make it a cornerstone issue or starts talking about something like a Constitutional amendment to protect "traditional" marriage. I don't think there will be a whole lot a President can do to influence this either way. But it sort of depends on where he lands on other issues, too.

[LynchPin1477]

Oops. That was supposed to be in response to Homple...

[entropy_factor]

oh i completely understand that reality, but I am saying the status quo is not sustainable in light of the increased acceptance of same sex marriages. But hell, I think income tax is immoral, so who am I? lol

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law benefitting one individual or group over another.

Think of the ramifications.

[thom]

Think of the ramifications.

All laws would be unconstitutional. I'd be fine with it.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No, they'd still be able to make laws that applied to all equally.

No one my murder, no one may steal...

But they wouldn't be able to use laws to buy votes.

[Paul.]

But they wouldn't be able to use laws to buy votes.

But that would attract an entirely different kind of politician!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Maybe like the type envisioned? Do what little government business there is to do and get your ass back home to make a living?

[Paul.]

Do what little government business there is to do and get your ass back home to make a living?

Way to take the incentive out of running for office, Mr. Buzzkill.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What good is running for office if I can't tell others how to live their lives, while becoming wealthy and powerful in the process?

[Juice]

Doesn't it say "equal protection" in more than one place? I guess that's not specific enough.

[PaulW]

Didn't Rand propose an Amendment similar to that?

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

I don't believe unions or a minimum wage law should exist and I think you're an idiot. This is not a capitalist vs socialist issue, in fact in tolerant environments gays and bisexuals are forces to be reckoned with in the private sector.

[Homple]

Will a failure to pass the Gay Marriage True Litmus Test of Libertarianism deprive Paul of libertarian support?

Stay tuned.

[Tonio]

Hey, that's some nice framing there, Homple.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Tea Bag is the movement!

[mr simple]

This is the beauty of libertarian leaders. It really doesn't matter the personal beliefs of the individual, because they're not going to impose them on anyone. Rand Paul still respects the process. Likewise, as much as I believe that anyone should have the right to contract with anyone else, I must respect the will of the majority if it is within the purview of the state. It is up to me to convince others to join my position.

[Acheron82]

**BANGS HEAD ON TABLE**

Folks, he probably does not really believe this - I honestly think Evangelical Social Conservatives are the big money donors and Republicans feel like they need to pander to them. The are equivalent to Environmentalist on the left.

[Acheron82]

My problem with his comment is that I don't believe it's a state rights issue. I wish he would come out and argue the purpose of Govt involvement in marriage in the first place. Justin Amash has but Amash is not running for President either so it's all about pandering to the social conservative right. Annoys me to all get out.

[Tonio]

Wow, Acheron, you have cojones grandes. Whenever I wonder where is all the principled opposition to government involvement in marriage, I get shouted down.

[Acheron82]

My problem with his comment is that I don't believe it's a state rights issue. I wish he would come out and argue the purpose of Govt involvement in marriage in the first place. Justin Amash has but Amash is not running for President either so it's all about pandering to the social conservative right. Annoys me to all get out.

[Paul.]

If he doesn't believe it he should stop saying it. Thanks for reminding me why I distrust all politicians.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Folks, he probably does not really believe this"

Why should we assume that a conservative Christian in insincere in announcing a belief which used to be shared by conservatives, liberals, moderates, and people of all political opinions, as well as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Confucians, atheists, and people of all religious opinions.

Do we suddenly assume that in espousing what used to be a near-unanimous opinion, Sen. Paul is lying about his true convictions?

[Tonio]

Did you mean "is insincere"?

[~Knarf Yenrab~]

We've assumed it for a long time. It's difficult to believe that someone raised by Ron Paul in a house where people discuss Mises & Rothbard like most people talk about baseball teams thinks that marriage should be left to the purview of any state.

The difference between Ron & Rand politically is striking. Ron has no political rhythm, never had any idea what or where the Overton Window is, and was generally a well-educated, well-meaning guy stuck in a pit of vipers. Rand is a vastly superior politician, but part of being a good politician is equivocating when your real views aren't popular opinions.

Virtually all paleolibertarians are against state interference in marriage in any way. Given that Rand spent his whole childhood surrounded by paleos (to an extent that dwarfs Obama's childhood commie influence), plenty of people suspect that he's lying through his teeth on many issues to further his political influence.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The choice is not between state interference in marriage and state noninterference. The choice is between a regime where SSM is *not* state-recognized and a regime where SSM *is* state-recognized. In the latter regime, state recognition has a tendency to be accompanied with dictation to private businesses.

Neither side is going for non-interference.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So, how on earth does the Kentucky decision bring the country toward deregulation of marriage?

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

Opposition to interracial relationships was also once a near-unanimous opinion.

[Sugarsail]

Here is an issue where Paul shows he is not a libertarian. A libertarian would cite the establishment clause and recognize that marriage in any of its forms (polygamy, gay marriage, hetero etc) has been historically defined by the establishment of a wide variety of religious creeds and state marriage laws are all in violation of the establishment clause. Get government out of the marriage business and simplify the tax code and end the gay marriage debate over night.

[MuhROADS]

Damnit Rand, your killing me.

[Tonio]

Hey, maybe you should form a single-issue advocacy group to get the government out of marriage. Why, I'm surprised there isn't a large, active group devoted to this cause already operating.

[ace_m82]

Lots of people getting upset about this answer. It is pretty close to how I would have answered it if I were asked the same question.

Christ plainly defined what marriage is (ought to be) for Christians, so he mirrors the Founding Fathers quite well by calling it the "religious" definition of the word. He then cites the 10th amendment to show that the rules the govt should play by don't allow the Federal gov to regulate marriage. And no, he doesn't say it should be banned at the state level nor cite "state's rights" (there is no thing).

My opinion is that he recognizes that the more local govt is more likely to come to the correct conclusion, if for no other reason than fear of their constituents.

And before anyone comments, while I know what marriage is, I know that govt has no authority to force people to use words correctly, and wouldn't trust them to do so if they had the authority (they've done such a good job of defining "unalienable", "abridged", "infringed", and "unreasonable"). Marriage is none of govt's business at any level. Citing the 10th amendment can be interpreted to mean precisely that. Conservatives see "state's rights" and libertarians see "none of govt's business". This is a perfectly worded answer for a politician.

[Juice]

He then cites the 10th amendment to show that the rules the govt should play by don't allow the Federal gov to regulate marriage.

But the constitution does give the federal government the power to regulate (in some ways) marriage. Read Art. 4 Sec. 1. Also, federal taxes and benefits are determined based on marital status.

[~Knarf Yenrab~]

It does nothing of the sort; it's a nicety to ensure continuity of records between states. There's nothing about it that affords the federal government power over the nature of the records themselves, much less anything that points to marriage in particular.

Article IV Section I in full:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[Tonio]

Paul didn't say "Christian," he said "religious," thus implying there was a single, universal definition of marriage agreed-upon by all religions throughout history.

Paul didn't say "Christian Era," he said "historical," again implying a single, universal definition throughout history.

So either ignorant, or willfully pandering.

Plus, there is a huge difference of opinion within christianity on gay people, gay marriage, etc.

[ace_m82]

He used the word "religious" as our Founders did, usually to mean "western religion", meaning "Christian".

I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that the definition is exactly the same everywhere at all times (though I know some conservatives who would). But that is the definition that is used generally in history.

You have inferred where he did not imply.

Yes, there is a difference of opinion within "Christianity" on the definition of the word. Some are bad at being Christians and some are ignorant. Christ was quite clear. Interesting side note, saying that Christ defined it for Christians is a bit of a Tautology because "Christian" means "little Christ", meaning "Christ follower". It isn't untrue to say that those who follow him use his definition.

[Tonio]

That's some impressive contortionism there, ace.

[ace_m82]

Let's assume the opposite, that "religious" meant "all religions over all times". Then no, that isn't what the word means ALL the time, but still the majority of the time. The vast majority of marriages in human history have been between one man and one woman.

As for how the Founders used the word religion, considering how much they disparaged Islam, I don't think they were talking about the second biggest religion in the world...

Also, the tautology is just awesome when you think of it. I can claim to be a duck but I don't have feathers, swim, eat fish, or even fly. Anyone can claim to be a Christian and yet ignore everything he ever said.

To be fair, I would have just said that I believe Christ's definition of the word, but that it's none of govt's business. That's why I can't get elected to anything.

[Tonio]

Yet despite all your contortions, there remains the fact that there exist perfectly good, commonly-use, non-ambiguous words which mean exactly what you claimed he meant. And he didn't use those words but chose to use vague, imprecise words. One usage left the impression that he was ignorant of the historical prevalence of polygamy vs monogamy.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian and yet ignore everything he ever said.

Why, yes. Just as anyone can claim that someone else isn't a True Christian(tm) for whatever reason. And those of us who are not christians are in no position to judge or take sides.

[ace_m82]

"And he didn't use those words but chose to use vague, imprecise words."

He's a politician. I showed how conservatives and libertarians can both interpret the statement to mean what they want it to mean, right? I'll guess he personally means it the libertarian way, but it doesn't matter as he is running for a Federal office. His answer is almost exactly how Gary Johnson answered the abortion question.

"Just as anyone can claim that someone else isn't a True Christian(tm) for whatever reason."

The word "Christian" comes from 1st century Antioch, so I'm not just making up definitions. And yes, Christ said, "Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me." This isn't a "True Scotsman" fallacy, it's a definitional truth.

[Robert]

Do you know what polygamy means? It means a condition of more than one marriage. It describes nothing about the marriages themselves

[ace_m82]

And I was the one accused of redefining words...

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

There's no evidence of an invisible man sitting on a cloud floating over Israel.

[ace_m82]

There is no evidence of millions of other universes either, and yet that is the best explanation the atheist can give me for "fine tuning"...

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

"Universe" means all of existence. Try again fundie.

[ace_m82]

By one definition, yes. Not by the multiverse theory used to explain fine tuning. Explain fine tuning without it. Try again, atheist.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

I don't know what's out there but to say that there's infinite space is alot more logical than to say we're in a snow globe on God's desk. If I were forced to believe in supernatural nonsense I would pick Buddhism or Wicca and not some regurgitated sun god.

[ace_m82]

"Fine tuning" is an observation that if a slight difference existed in relationships between forces, there would be no possibility for life. The best explanation come up with by the atheist is the "multi verse" theory, that there are millions of other universes out there with all the other ratios possible. The problem is there is no proof for this theory, and it is also (currently) impossible to prove or disprove.

So the atheist requires me to believe in millions of universes with no proof, and the theist requires me to believe in a creature that always existed who made our one universe.

[robc]

BTW, the law that was overturned was worded to be exactly the same as the one preventing the state from the recognition of out-of-state first cousin marriages.

Interestingly though, a foreign first cousin marriage is accepted, but not one from another US state or territory. Some federal stuff apparently came into play.

The first cousin provision still stands. Which is interesting, because it has much more historical backing.

[Tonio]

The first cousin provision still stands. Which is interesting, because it has much more historical backing.

Citation needed. And I suspect you're right, but I also recall that a lot of royalty practiced intermarriage to a fairly close degree. Sibling marriages in Ptolemaic Egypt being an extreme example.

[XM]

Rand Paul is not a true libertarian! What next, he's not down with legalizing all drugs and abortions? Let's cast him out and support a real libertarian candidate who has no chance of winning.

[juliajuliee309]

my buddy's step-sister makes $74 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her payment was $14180 just working on the internet for a few hours. site here....
http://www.Works23.us

[SoyIsMurder]

I agree with Mr. Paul that the issue should rest with the states, but a real libertarian would come down on the side of freedom and equal treatment at the state level. Religious overreach is no more defensible than government overreach (IMHO).

[Rich M]

"I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage."

So it must be safe to assume that Rand approves of polygamy too, since the history of that predates monogamy. It should also qualify as religious since many characters in the Bible had multiple wives.

"I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government. It is illegitimate for the federal courts to intrude here."

Uh, not according to the Constitution, Senator. Article IV, Section 1 states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

So basically, even if Kentucky is free to decide whether to allow same sex marriages within the state, they still must honor those performed in other states.

[Robert]

Polygamy does not define marriages. It's just a condition of having more than one marriage at the same time, poly-gamy. A marriage can be the same whether polygamy or monogamy exists w.r.t. it.

[bassjoe]

I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people

God, how effing unbelievable.

I believe Sen. Paul is a smart man and I REALLY wish he wouldn't trot out the effing "historic definition of marriage" idiocy because it makes me think much less of him. The "historic definition of marriage" including awesome legalities like "the wife is the property of the husband", "a husband cannot rape his wife" and "it's totally fine for a 50 year old man to pay a family to marry their 14 year old girl".

Yes, "the states and the people", to hell with the federal constitution. Then, Sen. Paul, I assume you're going to lead the charge in repealing EVERY benefit bestowed upon married people by the federal government (not to mention the surviving portions of DOMA), benefits that are 100% dependent on whether a state wants to recognize said marriage. Otherwise, sorry, it's a federal constitutional issue, as well.

[Robert]

You don't know what a definition is.

[Big Chief]

What bothers me about this situation is that the AG of KY has said he won't attempt to defend the law of the state, voted on by a VAST majority of the citizens (I think it was over 70% affirmative) in the courts. I don't really give a damn what his opinion is on it, the narcissist, it's not about him. I didn't like it when CA did it, either. Referendums and laws voted on by the people of the state deserve to be supported by the officers of the state. If he doesn't want to do it, he should resign. Otherwise he should get busy, support the law, and lose.

[Gindjurra]

In a pure democracy, citizens can indeed be stripped of any right, including the right to life, by popular vote.

Socrates and his hemlock tea is a good example of how that works. What ultimately killed the Athenian democracy, the ability to define citizens who cannot vote is another thing a pure democracy can do.

Knowing how pure democracy can create tyranny this way, the United States -- and the member states -- were set up as constitutional republics, not pure democracies.

In our form of democracy, it doesn't matter how many people think you have too many rights, you can't simply be voted off the island.

In order to be a State, Kentucky had to agree to honor the official acts of the other states. Such acts include contracts, wills and MARRIAGES. People from Kentucky would be enraged if other states considered marriages performed in Kentucky to be invalid -- why is it okay with you for Kentucky to do that to people from other states?

[Rich Grise]

WTF is Da Gubmint doing sticking their big camel nose into personal relationships? Where is the authorization to enforce some biblical definition of "marriage?"

What needs to happen is to end the flagrant institutionalized discrimination against single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special privileges, and other handouts that the breeding class are getting.

[Jayburd]

Gays are rent-seeking.

[Gindjurra]

Paul's opinion leads to absurdity -- just because someone has broken the law historically and gotten away with it doesn't mean that they didn't break the law or that they should continue to get away with it.

If someone started robbing liquor stores long enough ago that their first crime is past the statute of limitations, then continued robbing them right up to yesterday, that makes it worse not okay.

States are required to honor the official acts of other states as a condition of joining the Union and becoming a state in the first place. Such acts include (but are not limited to) contracts, wills and marriages.

Kentucky does of course have the right to not allow same-sex couples to get married in Kentucky, but the state must honor the official acts of other states, unless it intends to secede from the United States. It didn't end well for those states who tried it the last time.

It shouldn't take a court order for those sworn to uphold the law and constitution to actually keep their oaths.

[PaulW]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but there is absolutely no reason that Kentucky would have to abide by the terms set forth by another state in the marriage contract.

Kentucky can basically say, yeah sure you're married, but you're still filing single on your taxes.

What would really be interesting is how Kentucky would handle a gay divorce or custody hearing.

[D. M. Michell]

Christianity came of age in the Greco-Roman times and the Christians adopted their marriage customs. Both the Greeks and the Romans believed in one man, one woman marriages, but the men had sexual access to any female slaves in his household and prostitutes, of course. At the time of Christ, Hebrew men could have as many wives as they wanted and could afford and sexual access to any female slaves in his household as well.

Further, the Bible doesn't seem to have a problem with human sacrifice in the name of "the one true God." Leviticus 27:28-29 for instance, where it says anything or anyone that a man possesses which he "devotes" to God shall be put to death... including humans. Then in Judges 11: 29-40, we find that Jephthah vowed to God to make a burnt sacrifice of the first thing that came out of his house to greet him if God let him defeat the Ammonites. The first thing was his daughter. So she was offered up as a burnt sacrifice to God.

And, when it comes to daughters, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against father-daughter incest. (You see, women were property, pure and simple.) This is obviously true, because when Lot and his daughters had sex God didn't punish them. And there's more.

I wonder what part of these "historic and religious" actions Rand Paul believes in?

[ace_m82]

"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord."
Leviticus 18:6

There is no evidence that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. God prohibited human sacrifice and made very specific rules for burnt offerings. He likely "sacrificed" her by not allowing her to marry and she served God instead.

God didn't punish all sin immediately. In Genesis there was a lot of sin that wasn't punished immediately, like giving Sarah to someone else in "marriage"(twice).

But keep going. It entertains me greatly.

[Big Chief]

I don't agree with the law, and think it should be struck down. This is just another of many unconstitutional laws. He did make the statement that he believed the law would be struck down and therefore a waste of taxpayer money. I could give him a pass for that, except that was about 20th on his list of reasons, and not something I think he honestly cares about. I want to see some evidence he is a frugal money manager before I buy that. Oh, and now the taxpayers get to pay for outside counsel to defend the law. If he's really concerned about the wasted money he'll offer to pay for it out of his salary.

But the primary reasons he said he wouldn't move to uphold the law was that he wouldn't stand up for discriminatory laws. So I'm anxiously awaiting to see him refusing to uphold laws against polygamists, prostitution, and other people acting in voluntary association. For that matter I want to see all the wonderful the things he's been doing to support gay couples in the state. I could respect a man standing up for inalienable rights, but I don't believe for a moment that this is what he's doing. I think it's clearly a political move for a man with national ambitions who doesn't give a damn about his duty to his office or his state.

And he wants his daughter to be proud of him. Well then why did he go into politics?

His duty is clear and he should perform it or resign from office.

[Big Chief]

Somalia. You're supposed to tell Libertarians to go live in Somalia.

[Gindjurra]

Going by the fact that where you are born matters to citizenship, it's pretty clear that citizenship begins at birth.

Otherwise, non-citizen pregnant women who simply pass through the United States on their way to give birth in a foreign country would be giving birth to babies with automatic US citizenship.

[PaulW]

We can't all be perfect libertarians like Michael Hihn.

[PaulW]

I think you have a legit mancrush on Rand.

[PaulW]

Well Gindjurra, you solved the debate... if it were only true.

Citizenship depends on whether your parents are citizens first and foremost.

The U.S. just gives the added benefit of automatic citizenship if you are born here, even to non citizen parents.

Plus, is it legal to murder an illegal Mexican immigrant? I think not.

Your logic completely and utterly failed to convince me.

[PaulW]

I get so sick of radicals who accept nothing but complete obedience to their ideals immediately.

These people have not the mental agility to place politics into their equations.

Changing the country has much less to do with how pure your ideals are and more to do with your ability to change things incrementally.

You can hate Rand Paul all day, but the fact is, he will probably do more to advance libertarianism than anyone since Coolidge.

[ace_m82]

Read Johnson's position on it during his Presidential campaign...

Which bill was that? I didn't hear of it.

[ace_m82]

Yes, this would be covered by the 9th amendment, though certainly not envisioned by those who wrote/passed it. But the 10th amendment covers it too, and completely for a FEDERAL position.

[ace_m82]

See above. You don't have to care what he believes because he's running for a Federal office. It is almost EXACTLY what Gary Johnson said about abortion when he was running for President (not a Federal issue).

[XM]

"The majority of Americans have been libertarian for over 30 years"

On a few hot button issues like drug legalization, maybe. Their appetite for foreign adventures have waned.

But they're still not interested in reducing the deficit or spending. A city banning e-cigs or plastic bags is big news to us, but the rest will just shrug or grumble or do nothing.

No libertarian candidate (not a Dem or GOP candidate who is libertarianish) has been elected as mayor, senator, governor, president, etc. I believe there's a few in the local level.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

What excuse for maintaing government-mandated discrimination? You would have been just as on-topic if you had told me how much sodium was in your breakfast.

[ace_m82]

Try to read carefully, Johnson's position on ABORTION during his Presidential campaign. I had to look it up before I voted for him.

And you're VERY wrong about that bill. Refusing to fund something is very different from banning it. You sound like Fluke.

[ace_m82]

The Judiciary has no authority to determine what the Constitution says; they made that up during Marbury v. Madison.

Yes, individual rights trump state powers. So what? He didn't say otherwise.

[ace_m82]

I already replied, so look up his stance on ABORTION during his run for President. I am pro-life and voted for him so I had to know if he would do anything evil in a Federal office. I don't know why you seem to have a hang up with Paul in a similar situation...

[ace_m82]

He spoke against organized religion... done wrong, corruptly, in the incorrect way, ignoring its primary purpose.

The Pharisees were evil because they didn't "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Christ made an organized "religion" by being its Founder and training those who would lead it after he left.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

Umm in places like Seattle and Portland (ie tolerant environments) gay and bisexual business owners are extremely common and extremely competitive.

I did day he is an idiot

Whatever. Idiot.

Banning labor unions

You can't ban them. They only exist because of government. Without government any group calling themselves a union would get laughed at and told to pound sand.

[ace_m82]

God punished several people for giving sacrifices that weren't given in his prescribed manner. How much would he punish those who sacrificed a HUMAN to him? The very next verse would be about Jephthah's gory death...

He didn't accept human sacrifice in ANY capacity, as you'd know with a quick search of a Bible reference. But I know you will believe whatever you want...

Note, "whatever", not "whomever"... It is quite obvious that Jephthah wasn't talking about a human when he made the promise, and he knew he was barred from giving a human sacrifice. Read Romans 12:1 for a good example of a "human sacrifice"...

[ace_m82]

http://www.ontheissues.org/201.....ortion.htm

But your own point is destroyed by example. For Johnson (in your quote) is giving one answer and Paul another, (in your other). Your only objection with Paul is that he is "wrong" (while I think he is right). So what? Neither has the "moral advantage" over the other, unless you want to get your morality from the Supremes (Dred Scott, Korematsu, Obamacare, etc).

You have no "unalienable" right to take another's life, regardless of what the Supremes say. That is (should be) self evident. If you have the "right" to take another's life, then there is NO purpose for govt.

[ace_m82]

What you have been observing occurs in this universe, at least as far as we can measure their forces (gravity, light, etc). If "fine tuning" weren't there, the stars/galaxies couldn't exist in any form.

If you can observe "stars", then you aren't looking at another universe. Again, there is no proof of these other universes, as the astronomers/physicists will admit. We laymen can argue for hours, but the experts already admit it. Multi verse is the best explanation, and requires more faith than of one creature that has always existed.

[ace_m82]

1 is correct

2 is incorrect. Jefferson wanted revolutions every 20 years or so. Our protection is explained in the 1st and 2nd amendments.

3 is incorrect, it is "settled law", but so was Korematsu and Dred Scott. "Settled law" was made up by the Supremes in hopes that we'd leave them alone about their logical impossibilities. Of course, you should know that govt high school would indoctrinate their "students" into the ways of our "glorious leaders".

His mention of the 10th amendment meant that it is a fight between the people and the states, at which point the 9th amendment (incorporated by the 14th) would kick in. His answer, while incomplete, was sufficient for anyone running for FEDERAL office.

[ace_m82]

The 1st and 2nd amendments protect the Constitution. The Court lied and said it did.

Your argument was "it is settled law, and therefore right". I proved you wrong. The fact that the Supremes change their mind is proof of this.

The 9th amendment covers a bunch of rights, but the right to take another's life isn't there.

Rand and Ron were not hypocritical. They worked within the Constitution to try to stop the Fed from funding and forcing others to accept abortion, but not to ban it.

[ace_m82]

God demanded SPECIFIC sacrifices, and would accept nothing else.

1 Samuel 13,
2 Chronicles 26,
Leviticus 10

The proof that he didn't offer the human sacrifice is that he wasn't struck dead.

He didn't kill her, he offered her as a "sacrifice", one who would life for God, similar to a Nazirite vow. And your "proof" of human sacrifice is nothing of the sort, as the Scripture doesn't say he did it.

[ace_m82]

"You said Rand Paul's position is he same as Gary Johnson's, which I have proven a falsehood."

What they said is incredibly similar, both said they would work for (against) it, and they both pledged to not ban (force) it on the Federal level. Good proof... Did you look at my link?

I don't deny the bill of rights. I recognize that rights are so unalienable that one who takes them from another (govt or individual) should be punished severely.

The Constitution makes it neither a State or Federal issue, meaning that the COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION! Why do you insist that Judical review is Constitutional? It isn't in Article 3...

"The Court said no such thing."

I didn't say it did. I was making a true statement, one you cannot argue with. Therefore, it isn't "distorting" a ruling.

"There are TWO individuals here -- a fetal child and a woman"

Thanks for just handing me the debate. Of course there are two individuals here, both with rights. I haven't taken anyone else's rights, though the woman killing the child would take its rights.

Because it ticks you off, I will say it again, you have no right to take another's life. You've already admitted it is alive, and an individual. Therefore, you (she) can't take its life.

[ace_m82]

"There are many universes."

Thanks. There is no proof of your assertion. It is taken on faith.

"Fine-tuning deals with life -- as you yourself said."

Yep, also whether or not planets/stars/etc. can exist.

"Umm, the other universes are too far away."

An assertion taken on faith.

"Again, bad bluff, but they admit no such thing."

Have you asked one?

"The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."

"More scientific work needs to be done before researchers can be confident they have found evidence of the existence of the 'multiverse'."

No. They still don't even call it "evidence" yet, just a furthering of the theory. "Can" doesn't imply "does".

But keep going, please. Your faith is fascinating!

[plusafdotcom]

I was going to offer a post to Rand Paul that a recent Pew survey showed that younger voters are more and more accepting of 'gay rights' and abortion choice.

If Paul wants to piss into THAT wind or tug on THAT cape, he's obviously free to do so, but might be torpedoing future votes for him... Just sayin'.

[plusafdotcom]

Excerpt...

Only 36 percent of the millennials said the phrase "a religious person" described them very well, compared with 52 percent of the Gen Xers, 55 percent of the baby boomers and 61 percent of the Silent Generation. And they're significantly less religious than their immediately predecessors, the Gen Xers. When they were the same age, almost half of the Gen Xers ? 47 percent ? identified themselves as religious.

The 64 percent of the millennials who say that they are not religious "is the highest for any age group we've ever measured," Taylor said.

The millennials were far less inclined toward marriage than the groups that preceded them. Only 26 percent of the millennial adults are married. When they were the same age, 36 percent of the Gen Xers, 48 percent of baby boomers and 65 percent of the Silent Generation were married.

The report also found:

? 68 percent of young adults favor allowing gay marriage, compared with 55 percent of the Gen Xers, 48 percent of the boomers and 38 percent of those in the Silent Majority.

? The support for legalizing marijuana at 68 percent for millennials. The next highest percentage was the Gen Xers at 53 percent and the boomers at 52 percent.

? A majority of the millennials ? 55 percent ? say people living in the United States illegally should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/20.....rylink=cpy