Is Rand Paul Trying to Have It Both Ways on Gay Marriage? Probably Not.


"Not a federal matter" somehow becomes "supports constitutional amendment"
Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

You may have possibly heard this morning that The New York Times Magazine this weekend is exploring whether our "libertarian moment" has arrived. Besides visiting Reason in D.C., writer Robert Draper interviewed libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), among others. An analysis from Paul of the rocky current relationship between the Republican Party and the realities of Americans' shifts of opinion on same-sex marriage has gotten some attention. Here's what Paul said in the interview:

"The party can't become the opposite of what it is," he told me. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we've been wrong, and we're gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they're either gonna stay home or — I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues. So I don't think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent? I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions."

The folks over at the gay activist group Human Rights Campaign have jumped on these comments and think this means a flip-flop from Paul over comments Paul said earlier this week in Iowa while preparing for what is obviously going to be a run for the president. Here's how CNN described Paul talking about marriage at a breakfast event in Urbandale, Iowa:

Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday he supports the idea of traditional marriage but thinks Washington shouldn't be involved in the issue.

"I'm in favor of the concept," the Kentucky Republican told an audience in Iowa. "I am in favor of traditional marriage, and I think that's been the foundation for civilization for thousands of years."

"And the loss of the idea of marriage is probably the leading cause of poverty in our country, in the sense that if you kids before you're married, your chance of being in poverty is three of four times that of anyone else," he continued.

Emphasis on the word "concept" added. It seems pretty obvious to me that he is talking about the "concept" of traditional marriage, not the concept of a constitutional amendment. In fact, he states very clearly that he takes the libertarian position against having the federal government license marriages period. He said, "I don't want to register my guns in Washington or my marriage. That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn't register their marriage in Washington. They registered it locally at the courthouse. I'd rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue."

But somehow, the Human Rights Campaign has decided that Paul nevertheless supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage despite everything else he says and is now trying to attack him as a flip-flopper. They put out a press release today in response to the Times story on libertarians titled "Rand Paul on Marriage Equality: ¯\_(?)_/¯," incorrectly stating that Paul has declared his support for the "concept" of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Vice President for Communications Fred Sainz memorializes some poor reading comprehension skills in print:

"I can't decide whether to be disturbed or pleased, so I've settled on confused. I just hope that when the libertarian from Kentucky heads to Iowa and New Hampshire, he doesn't leave his love of liberty at home. The Republican Party must move forward on this issue. The clock is ticking, three marriage cases have already reached the Supreme Court, and there is no doubt that this issue will cause the GOP enormous pain in 2016 if they don't engage in a meaningful way, and fast."

Accidental misunderstanding or deliberate mischaracterization? There's obviously no way a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is going to be on the table and obviously Paul realizes it. Perhaps it's just another sign that more people are realizing Paul as a presidential frontrunner and sharpening the knives.

Below, Paul makes some similar comments in a recent interview with Reason TV while at a tech conference in San Francisco:

A REMINDER UPDATE: As late as 2013, Paul was arguing that federalism (letting the states decide) is a way to hold back the advance of gay marriage recognition. It's still not an indication of support for a constitutional amendment, though

NEXT: Justin Sykes on How Solar Energy Policies Hurt America's Poor

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. Anyone who thinks that the marriage of one man to one woman has been the foundation of civilization for thousands of years is a fucking retard.

    1. Yes, but the marriage of one man to a harem of 100 women, all while having a romantic and pederasty relationship with 12 year old boys, while the peasants are left no options other than wedding the cow or paying for bedding the whore is a less catchy pitch.

      1. "It's good to be the King."

        Except for the whole pederasy part, NTTAWWT, just not my cup of tea. I'll stick with 100 woman harem, thanks.

      2. Right. Harems were very common. It's not like there was ever a 50/50 split between males and females born. It fortunate that people preferred to have girls instead of boys else there wouldn't be enough females to go around. /sarc

    2. Technically its really only about as old as the late Roman Empire.

      before that, polygamy and boyfuckin' were pretty par for course.

      The only real point and purpose behind matrilinial heirs was to encourage the intermixing of wealth between clannish family groups. The Romans actually thought just 'nominating' heirs was actually more sensible, because it seemed pretty clear that many of their biological kids were little shits.

      I personally think that would be a far more interesting and liberating social convention to throw by the wayside - the idea that family ties necessitate legal and financial relations.

      I think stefan molyneux is kinda goofy about that idea = that people should be able to 'pick' their families, rather than simply be saddled with them according to biology. Its a thought.

      1. I pick no family. When my time on this planet is done, I expect to go out like a viking. Liquidate all my assets and pull every last dollar out of the bank, load it onto a floating coffin and send me out into the fjord where you will shoot the flaming arrow to ignite me and all my earthy treasure as a tribute to Odin.

        1. I like your style, Bjorn

        2. Hey, fuck it, let's use these fake dollars. We'll blame the gods when they show up wrong in Valhalla.

        3. There are businesses that cater to this desire.

          1. Any word on what the upgrade to having one of the thrall women burned alive with you costs?

            1. That's pretty expensive.

      2. I agree! Will you be my brother? On an unrelated (pardon the pun) matter can I borrow $50, bro?

        1. Addendum:

          If I choose to have no family, does that mean one of you will force me to work in your diamond mines/monocle factory?

          1. It depends: are you young/ small enough to be able to fit into the machinery of my monocle factory to clean out debris from between the gears? If so, welcome aboard, orphan!

      3. before that, polygamy and boyfuckin' were pretty par for course.

        Really only among elites. Many wives were expensive and raping boys required a good spear a good shield, a good helm, probably a horse, status and wealth. think about it, if some dude started raping your 10 year old son there would have to be a good reason why you would not cave his head in with a rock.

        The peasants (or whatever they called them pre-rome) were basically hetero-monogamous with some cheating on the side and probably the base 3 to 5% homosexuality we see today.

        1. Also should point out lots of records say among the Egyptians, Hittites and Sumerians that there was a lot of marital heirs among royalty and they are a shit load older then Rome.

          We are closer in time today with the life of Caesar then Caesar was with the building of the pyramids at Giza.

          1. To my point = marriage was a contract primarily about retention of wealth in family groups, and exchange of title.

            it had almost no connection to "monogamy" (one man/one woman)

            marriage was about money and politics. The romans were clear on that. They only made monogamy a necessary requirement in the 4th century when the Xtians got all up in there.

            1. *To my point = marriage was a contract primarily about retention of wealth in family groups, and exchange of title.*

              Gee, and yet somehow, it evolved into what it is today and has been for the better part of 400 years or so.

              Don't be so obtuse.

              1. What's obtuse about disagreeing that '400 years' /= 'thousands'?

          2. The only real point and purpose behind matrilinial heirs was to encourage the intermixing of wealth between clannish family groups

            Also I don't think this is correct.

            I think among the Egyptians and Hittites it was more of a fill the lands with kin so the family can hold the power.

            Similar to farmer having a shit load of kids so they have a shit load of workers a ruler would have a first wife and the first born son would be the first in line then the ruler would gather a whole bunch of other wives to impregnate and all those kids would fill positions of power under the leader and later his first son. Basically it was a way to bind kin selection to benefit the throne.

            1. same difference. politics. money. more of a common business deal made by landowners than the fundamental underlying principle of the entire society (as per the original claim)

              i dont know what your point is about egyptians/hittites etc. yes Marriage has been a far older 'structure', and even '1 wife' systems

              but never was it 'law for everyone', and never was it strictly monogamous (criminalizing relations outside of marriage) until the late roman Christians.

              i.e. "one woman / one man" - which is the claim this entire thread started with.

              1. So the Jews, from which the Christians came, were not monogamous either?

                1. http://www.jewishencyclopedia......0-polygamy

                  "While there is no evidence of a polyandrous state in primitive Jewish society, polygamy seems to have been a well-established institution, dating from the most ancient times and extending to comparatively modern days. The Law indeed regulated and limited this usage; and the Prophets and the scribes looked upon it with disfavor. Still all had to recognize its existence, and not until late was it completely abolished"

                  1. Well sure, it happened, but in a broad view Christians have polygamous histories even in modern times (Fundamentalist Mormons) and yet, despite that, I wouldn't consider it either normative or particularly descriptive of their faith.

    3. A lot of you seem to be conflating "foundation of civilization" with "very common occurrence among wealthy, powerful men for centuries"

      Slavery was also extremely common among the same type of people, but we don't consider that to be the foundation of civilization.

      1. by "a lot of you", are you referring to the one person who posted, and lumping in people responding who disagree with his comment?

        This sounds sort of like Bo's "a lot of you are 'Conservatives'..." because 'derp'

        1. "A lot of" the comments above, including yours, implied that polygamy and pederasty were in competition with monogamy for title of "foundation of civilization". So, no, I wasn't talking about one person.

          1. No one said polygamy and pederasty were in competition for shit.

            Just that this idea of "monogomous heterosexual marriage" being universally associated with 'civilization' is a tenuous claim at best. As noted - the monogomy part didnt really even come into play until the near-end of the Roman empire. At least as force of law. Even the early christians were more like 'multiply wherever possible!' versus 'one per customer'.

      2. But, without slaves those many years ago WHO WOULD HAVE BUILD THE ROADS!?

        1. Un...BUILT

    4. FYI

      decent backgrounder on how the Xtians introduced the legal/structural monogomous marriage concept around the 5th century


      it is also notable that a number of saints in the 3rd and 4th century had numerous concubines and tended to do it "roman style", despite being pretty serious 'Christians'.

      St Augustine of Hippo being a notable one. he came up with some of the language which eventually made it into the whole 'body/soul' commingling doctrine.

    5. It's certainly proved to a better social arrangement compared with 0 men to 1 woman, or 1 man to N women.

  2. You know who else wanted it both ways on gay marriage?

    1. Bi-sexuals in committed relationships?

    2. There is no wrong answer, but the correct answer is Liza Minnelli.

  3. Personal liberty and a government stamp of approval don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

    1. Marriage has a lot less to do with approval for a lot of people than it used to.

      I favor recognition of gay marriage, but I don't think it has anything to do with personal liberty. It has to do with equal protection and people minding their own damn business, which are also important things.

      1. minding their own damn business

        Like a bakery?

        Seriously, this was why I was/am opposed to gay marriage esp. the Federal construct. Insanely overwhemling numbers 'people who knew people who had a partner', who had no clue about medicine were, crying foul about people being excluded from emergency rooms or visitation. As though the nurses and doctors were hateful fundamentalist zealots who went about poisoning homosexual men with bacon in a cruel plot to discriminate against their life partners.

        Given other blatantly statist 'pro-gay' legal two-stepping, it was obv. that at least part of the movement was to exploit equal protection to the fullest.

  4. It's a deliberate misunderstanding by liberals who fear Paul's genuine crossover appeal, but I will say I don't care much for Paul's marriage-guns analogy, I don't want local and state lawmakers deciding who can defend themselves and who can't anymore than I want them deciding the legitimate gender arrangements of unions.

    1. Eh. He's not running for state office.

      1. If denying gays marriage is a violation of equal protection or a fundamental right to marry, that's a 14th Amendment violation and that amendment was specifically written for the states. The 14th Amendment is also what applies the 2nd to the states, and I don't want someone to say, in relation to gun control measures 'well, I'm running for a federal office not mayor of DC or Chicago, so let them work that out.'

        1. I hope 2L goes well for you.

          1. It went quite well, 3L is up next.

            1. I look forward to seeing you across the negotiating table someday.

              Really. I do.

              1. You know what they say, careful what you wish for.

            2. nothing more obnoxious than a grad/law student.

              I know. I was one.

        2. Of course there is the argument that its not a 14th amendment issue at all but rather that denial of the right to marry any other consenting adult is actually a 1st and 10th Amendment issue. But we wouldn't want to ruin the narrative that seeks to carve out yet another class of individuals for identity politics sake.

          1. 1st and 910th Amendment issue


            1. damnit, meant to fix the other way.

          2. For better or worse, the due process clause of the 14th has become the home of our 9th Amendment unenumerated rights.

            What's your argument re the 1st, association? Just curious.

            1. Association, via contract.

              Personally, I want Lochner reinstated. I think the biggest issue that is destroying the sanctity of marriage these days is the perverse incentives contained within a no fault divorce. It's the only contract I'm aware of where the party in breach (often through infidelity) can reap significant financial rewards without any recourse or punishment.

              1. Sounds reasonable to me.

  5. It seems to me that it was the Human Rights Campaign who wanted to have it both ways first: they want to be pro-gay-rights while endorsing candidates who are anti-gay-marriage.

    In 2008, HRC endorsed Barack Obama for president and worked tirelessly across the country to elect him - from raising money online to rallying volunteers in key states. One year later, President Obama was the keynote speaker at HRC's 13th Annual National Dinner.


    This despite the fact that the President was not in favor of gay marriage until about May 2012.

    So fuck you, HRC.

    1. That's a silly attack on the HRC (who can be pretty silly in themselves at time): gay marriage is not the only issue they care about and you have to compare who they endorsed in 08 with who his opponent was and how he stood on the issues they care about.

      1. they could have withheld their endorsement entirely.

        1. And what kind of progress does that make for them? In 2008 they had a dozen or so issues they cared about. Some of them were endorsed by virtually no national politicians, some of them were. Finding the guy who supported some of those and finding his opponent supported none and deciding to endorse the former is not a unreasonable or unprincipled strategy.

          1. And for the proof, look at how it panned out for them in the end, the candidate they helped get elected ended up taking their position pretty much across the board.

            1. A fine example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Bo.

              1. You don't think gay rights groups working for and raising money for Obama had anything to do with his 'evolution' on gay marriage, or his appointing of gay ambassadors, or endorsement of laws like ENDA, etc.?

                1. I think he was always in the bag for them and they both knew it, he just had to wink for the camera about being in favor of traditional marriage until it became more politically palatable to share his real view.

          2. First, as I noted, there are more than two parties. Second, you're just affirming, rather than refuting, the overarching issue, which is that the HRC is more invested in Democratic politics than actual gay equality.

            1. I think they see the Democrat party as the best way to advance gay equality as they understand it. If you look at it the way they understand it (and I don't btw), it's hard to argue they were wrong about that. The Democrat Party has pretty much taken their stance on everything they would have said they wanted in 08.

              1. I believe that both presidential candidates in 08 had the exact same stance on gay marriage.

                1. That's right, and gay marriage is one of many issues the HRC cared about at the time.

                  1. so they backed the candidate that was opposed to their signature issue at the time.

                    re: progress. i means they are not a sure thing.

                    1. "so they backed the candidate that was opposed to their signature issue at the time."

                      Yep he was a Democrat and that was all that mattered.

                    2. No, c'mon. Yes they had the same supposed stance, but I think gay marriage was one of the things you could read between the lines about Obama. Not trying to claim politician mind-reading, but liken it to Rand emphasizing his "right-wing bona fides" in the primaries (a safe bet to happen). Some of it is of course an act.

      2. BS. Their sole focus is gay equality. It's right there in the mission statement:

        The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.

        As for the opponents, I bet Ralph Nader and even Bob Barr had better positions on the subject.

        1. And of course, gay equality in 2008 was a single issue thing. /sarc

          Of course their overall goal is gay equality. In 2008 that meant, for them, non-discrimination policy, hate crime legislation, gay adoption, etc., etc., and, yes, it would be nice to have gay marriage. Like many national organizations that endorse they really only look at the 'big two' because they hope to have a 'seat at the table' that way. Between Obama and McCain there was no contest on the things they cared about, they weren't going to pass on potential gains and influence because all of the candidates didn't endorse everything they wanted. They chose the one that agreed with them on lots but not all and who had a chance of winning, and you know what, it absolutely worked for them. Not only did he deliver on the things he agreed on with them, but he eventually came their way even on goals they likely thought to be longshots.

    2. Bam!

      HRC just got busted by the Tone Police!

  6. I'm going to eventually be paying a 70% tax rate all because a few people get grossed out by the idea of gay sex.

    1. I'm grossed out by your handle.

    2. I have never seen a statement that so aptly captures the frustration of being a libertarian in the millennial generation.

    3. The thing is, one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      I would rather Paul come out and say that the 14th Amendment applies certain rights and obligations on the state and local governments whether that involve respecting the right of self defense or it involves equal protection of the laws in areas like marriage recognition, but for Paul, who is by the way running for President in the Republican Party, to take this stance, is yet another sign of how courageous and principled he is but in a way that keeps him politically viable on the national level. Let's remember that most of his opponents will probably come out for a federal marriage amendment, so Paul's position is a good thing.

      1. I would prefer he went with the 10th Amendment - let the States and the People deal with it.

    4. The people that are grossed out by gay sex also want a 70% tax rate?

      1. I think he was making the point that the social conservatives in the Rep. party scare away millenials and thus Dems will always win big national elections and thus their big tax policies will rule.

      2. Because, of course, it is social conservatives that need to pipe down and vote for social liberals in order to get our fiscal house in order and not the other way around.

  7. OT: I'm neither endorsing or criticizing this bit from Scott Adams. I just happen to think it's an interesting peice on the nature of intelligence which may be of interest.

    When it comes to politics, humans are joiners, not thinkers. The reason a computer can't have a political conversation is because politics is not a subset of intelligence. It is dogma, bias, inertia, fear, and a whole lot of misunderstanding. If you wanted to program a computer to duplicate human intelligence in politics you would have to make the computer an idiot that agreed with whatever group it belonged regardless of the facts or logic of the situation.


    1. On way of modeling politics (on a computer) is to treat it like a disease vector. Prolonged contact causes the disease to spread.

    2. Yup.

      "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."

    3. I just happen to think it's an interesting peice on the nature of intelligence which may be of interest.

      Shit, some of us feel this way about pretty much everything outside 2+2.

      If you generally think that anything other than relatively basal facts and observations aren't the least bit swayed by politics, you're the victim of a brainwashing political machine.

      Tons of cognitive research shows that our brains are redundantly set up to generate lies at the hardware level on a pretty regular basis in order to prevent biological 404 errors and BSOD. *Two minute* video clips shown to 20 humans generate a distribution of responses to factual queries, why anyone would presume we are guided, unfalteringly, by our own intelligence and rationality is beyond me.

    4. That makes perfect sense, because nobody ever changes their opinions about anything.

      1. Do they change upon reflection, or upon sensing a shift in what is considered a socially acceptable opinion in their group? Fashion changes too, but it isn't a question of intelligence.

  8. I don't want to register my guns in Washington or my marriage. That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn't register their marriage in Washington. They registered it locally at the courthouse. I'd rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue.

    Okay, and should those localities be allowed to grant special recognition to certain marriages while refusing them to others?

    1. That's kind of an odd thing to say (the quote, not your response). I'm pretty sure that people still register their marriages in their local courthouse or county registrar and not in Washington (unless they are DC residents). Anti-gay marriage stuff like DOMA is really the only area where Washington has been directly involved in marriage (unless you want to include all the recent cases in federal courts in "Washington").

      I don't want to register my guns anywhere.

      I don't particularly want to register my marriage anywhere either, but current tax policy pushes things in that direction.

    2. Why should I care what your town or state does?

      1. If Chicago decides to ban all handguns, do you care what that town does?

        1. They did ban all handguns and the results were pretty amusing.

      2. Drake, do you think that way about things like the right to keep and bear arms?

    3. If Kentucky says you can be married at 12 yoa, should Nevada have to recognize such?

  9. So the porch shooter guy is guilty

    Weren't all the Gawkers and Salons using this as an example of how racist America is?

    1. Cheryl Carpenter, Wafer's attorney, said the pounding on Wafer's home was "getting louder and louder and louder and louder until the floors started vibrating, the walls were shaking, the window was about to break, the screen door was already broken."

      I'm guessing the jury got upset at Carpenter's implication they were stupid enough to believe that.

    2. America's still racist, but any Michiganderanian can tell ya about a Wayne County jury, yo.

      Good verdict. Maybe the dude can learn where to put his trigger finger while he's in prison...

    3. Certainly an example of how not to defend your home legally.

      1. Assaulting a structure is probably one of the most dangerous things you can do.

        Probably best not to do it alone, unarmed, drunk, and high as a kite.

        That's why SWAT teams don't do no knock raids that way.

        And, if you're going to shoot someone who's assaulting a structure, it's always best to let them get in a little bit before you open fire.

  10. Mawage. Mawage is what bwings us togever today. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

    And wuv, twoo wuv, will fowow you foweva...

    So tweasure your wuv.

      1. Fucking homophobic Rob Reiner and his disgusting heteronormativity.

        1. To be fair, it was being said by the villain, and in a manner later claimed by the hero to have rendered the wedding illegitimate.

          1. I can't wait until they start doing PC movie edits where Wesley adds the line "everyone knows that its not a real marriage unless the officiant refers to it as "life partner and life partner."

  11. Anyone seen an artisanal mayonnaise, pizza or circumcision thread 'round these parts?


  12. OT: Guess who gets paid over $242,613 a year to teach one class on income inequality?

    Meanwhile most adjuncts are paid around $3000 per semester or less to teach a class section.

    1. That's a lot of money for a little man.

    2. The complete and total lack of self-awareness of the Left would be hilarious were it not so dangerous.

      1. Didn't the Soviet Union also spend a lot of time and money fighting "imperialist oppression" or some other such nonsense?

  13. This is what happens when you try to "balance" issues as a politician, and Rand Paul seems to be turning more and more into an institutionalized politician. The point on marriage, be it "traditional" or gay is that the gov't has no business determining what a marriage is. Recognition of who is or is not married can only be determined by one's church, any benefit of a determination of marriage should be eliminated by gov't.

    1. That is exactly what message the Libertarians, or anyone else who actually believes in small government, should have on this issue

      1. By that logic, Libertarians shouldn't vote to lower taxes and instead let the other side raise taxes as high as they like while our side works on repealing them entirely.

        1. Only if the libertarian position on taxation is that it shouldn't exist at all, which I don't believe it is.

    2. Recognition of who is or is not married can only be determined by one's church

      Only by church, huh? No one else can recognize a marriage?

  14. Who gives a shit whether he supports a constitutional amendment? He supports treating gays as second-class citizens. Or he supports lying and pretending he believes that so he can get the redneck dumbass vote.

    Everything you guys bitch about with respect to Obama, Paul is doing only worse. Have fun with that, guys. Sheesh.

    1. *He supports treating gays as second-class citizens. Or he supports lying and pretending he believes that so he can get the redneck dumbass vote*

      Are you talking about Obama, 2008?

      1. And Rand Paul circa now.

    2. "He supports treating gays as second-class citizens."

      Citation needed.

    3. Everything you guys bitch about with respect to Obama, Paul is doing only worse. Have fun with that, guys. Sheesh.


      I know. He's like the super Obama.

  15. I think a lot of people get "marriage" and "sex" confused in this debate.

    No one is debating whether gay sex occurred in the past. Of course it did. But "marriage" has long been M-F (and before that, M-F-F-F+). It's simple biology that drives this relationship- breeding, passing of the genes. It's a method of contractually obligating people and distributing possessions.

    This 21st century disconnect from the nature of humans has driven people to conflate sexual preferences (gay, straight, sheep, whatever) with marriage. Although not personally very religious or SoCon-ish, I honestly think the legal implications of a "marriage" should be extended to whoever- ie, a contractual agreement. But the actual word marriage originally refers to the fruit-bearing relationship- a forced monogamy in the interest of continuing the species.

    I think the win-win for everyone on the gay marriage debate is 1) keep the meaning of the word marriage as M-F, while adding "civil union" or whatever for gays (this appeases SoCons), 2) opening contractual ability to same sex couples, multiple partners, etc (this appeases Mormons, divorcees, etc) 3) remove the tax benefits of being married (this appeases all groups).

    IMO, the gay marriage issue is largely driven by legal and financial concerns more so than a craving for monogamy. I think there is a way to maintain the linguistic meaning while also allowing consenting adult humans to contract in whatever way they please.

    1. * stands by for Christfag comments *

    2. Government has long been by fuedal lords. Therefore the American "government" is not actually a government.

      Voting has long been by men only. Therefore female participation in elections is not actually voting.

      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

      1. yeah I don't think gay sex will ever go away, obviously. But I think the detachment of human reproduction by in vitro fertilization, gene splicing, sex robots, whatever,- while 'progress', you have to question whether all 'progress' is actually positive. Human nature can not be replaced by some new cultural norm. Personally, I believe reproduction is one of the basic telos in life. Obviously not every reproduces, but it's weird to see it being portrayed as "unnecessary" for the species- whether it be sustainability-wise or psychologically.

        1. oh yeah and

          something something pretentious I could've typed in English but thought I would look smart quoting a dead language something something

          1. Given that "language" original referred to Latin only, I object to your attempt to redefine the term by calling English a language.

        2. Evolution has had many more failures than successes.

      2. I think corn is now a meat so there for it is, I think rabbits are now birds so now they are, etc. Two can play at this game.

        1. Corn originally meant wheat, as corn didn't actually exist in Europe at the time the word appeared. What we call corn now was originally called "Indian Corn". So you're playing at this game just by calling corn "corn".

          1. I didn't say wheat, I said meat, but I suppose it doesn't matter what I said if words can mean anything someone wants them to mean.

            I just always find some people's opinions on this subject very odd. Why does a Libertarian, who by definition wants as little to do with government as possible, and believes that government should do as little as possible, whine when government won't redefine marriage for him?

            Why do they whine when they won't extend benefits, that they don't believe should exist in the first place, to more and more people?

            Basically on this issue I see far too many Libertarians arguing for expanding government, for more government intervention in our lives, when it makes far more sense from a libertarian perspective to argue against government being involved in marriage altogether.

            1. *Basically on this issue I see far too many Libertarians arguing for expanding government, for more government intervention in our lives, when it makes far more sense from a libertarian perspective to argue against government being involved in marriage altogether.*


              But hey, let's all sit around arguing about this...and kvetching everytime a cop does something we don't like.

            2. Why do they whine when they won't extend benefits, that they don't believe should exist in the first place, to more and more people?

              Because the benefits we do exist, and we realize that eliminating state sponsored marriage is so far beyond the realm of the politicial possible that the Socons arguing for it are doing so purely because they're fine with the status quo.

              Suppose the current status quo required all churches to perform same sex marriages regardless of their religious stance on homosexuality. If a bill came up to allow churches to choose which marriages to accept, I doubt you'd be saying not to pass the bill because the true libertarian position ought to be to wait until we can eliminate all government recognition of marriage.

            3. I didn't say wheat, I said meat

              If we accept your argument that the meaning of words never changes, you DID say wheat. That's what "corn" originally meant.

    3. Agreed, except, 1) remove "marriage" from federal laws (see #2) and allow people to define it however they want within their own social and religious groups.

      1. sure, I can agree.

      2. I honestly wish the SoCons could agree to allow the contracts if the word "marriage" is preserved. The linguistic battle is real here- Marxists are veterans of this kind of thing. I think it could settle their minds that the gheys aren't coming to destroy their marriages, perhaps.

        Thing people seem to forget is, no matter if it is made legal or not (my prediction: legal in 50 states in 5 years), there will be people who will NEVER culturally accept it. I think there is room at the table for those people. Whether we like it or not, some people ain't gonna like "faggots" no matter how many govt decrees. We shouldn't have to have unity of thought on any issue.

        1. I used to be more ambivalent but became convinced by the 14A argument (the gov. is conferring privileges not available to all), which is why I'm in favor of throwing it wide open: any set of consenting adults can contract to create a legal family unit, and leave "marriage" to churches and social groups to administer as they see fit.

    4. Good post and I agree. I think most of the advocates for gay marriage see it as denying people an expression of love, when that was never the reason that the institution developed in the first place.

      That said, I think the concept of marriage started changing before the gay marriage debate came to the forefront. So I think those who accuse gay marriage advocates of changing it are not looking at the true sequence of events.

    5. "1) keep the meaning of the word marriage as M-F,"

      out of curiosity... why the demand?

      Semantic victory?

      1. i don't see it as a demand. I just see it as sweetening the pot for the really obstinate people. quid pro quo, I guess

    6. It's a natural evolution of the notion of marrying for love and companionship rather than marrying for status, child-rearing, and tribal politics.

      If we were still in that mindset, the notion of a marriage that could produce no (natural) heirs or benefit to clan would be strange and offensive, but similarly the notion of denying someone the joys of love and companionship for arbitrary reasons seems petty and cruel.

  16. In the middle of the road you see the darndest things
    Like Senators waffling on obvious things
    Like wedding rings and lawsuits

  17. Good luck trying to split the difference between civilization and tolerance, on the one hand, and "I want cake!" on the other hand.

    1. Damnit, now I want cake.

  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg Redefining marriage for purposes of rent seeking.

    1. Sorry, I fail to see the "rent seeking" in that video.

      That's just Ryan Anderson putting up a straw man argument to defend his position that the government should impose the religious views of his favorite religions.

      1. Tax breaks, medical benefits, wedding cakes, survivor benefits, whatever you can get via force. It's all good.

  19. Advocating the government licensure, regulation, subsidy and endorsement of same-sex relationships is not in any way, shape, or form a libertarian position. It is a radical egalitarian position of the far left.

    The failure of intellectual consistency on this issue among many self-professed libertarians is staggering. And I'm not talking about the ones who oppose it.

    1. If you want to support government-sanctioned same-sex marriage that's your right. But don't call it libertarianism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.