LGBT Super Stupid

Rand Paul Calls for an End of State Recognized Marriage

Rand son of Ron thinks he's very clever for calling for an end to all state-sanctioned marriage rather than just gay marriage, but what he says here is remarkably stupid.

When Rand was asked about the Kentucky court clerk who has refused to issue a gay marriage license, Rand said the government should get out of the business of marriage.

"I think one way to get around the whole idea of what the Supreme Court is forcing on the states is for states just to get out of the business of giving out licenses," Paul said. "Alabama has already voted to do this, they’re just no longer going to give out licenses. And anybody can make a contract. And then if you want a marriage contract you go to a church. And so I’ve often said we could have gotten around all of this also in the sense that I do believe everybody has a right to a contract."

This is the dumbest shit.

Marriage is not just an emotional agreement or pact between two people; it's a legal contract with legal consequences. A marriage can dictate everything from tax rates to hospital visitation rights, to inheritance and right to counsel.

These are not things a church or just "anybody" can dictate without state recognition. And, for fuck's sake, if a church were allowed to decide such things we may return to a time when same-sex couples were not allowed to visit their sick loved ones or receive the pension or benefits owed to the family of a deceased spouse.

Is Rand suggesting the free market will take care of these dilemmas? What would stop someone from forming a church where you actually can marry your lawnmower as Steve King recently predicted?

How would the federal government dispense rights and benefits owed to federal employees or military service members if their marriages are not officially recognized?

I may or may not have descended into a everlasting run-on sentence of expletives invariably consisting of a four letter word as I read Rand's words, you stupid bastard. This is the essence of libertarianism; privileged access to rights. No guarantees.

This only became a thing after the Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the same constitutional rights as everyone else. This wasn't a cause before now. Because libertarian means I got my liberty and fuck you. Get your own liberty.

  • Username1016

    WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS???? I’m not going to no stinkin’ church to get any kind of status ever, WTF!

  • GrafZeppelin127

    That’s the knee-jerk reaction of every dimwit wingnut who can’t/won’t think things through; “Just get government out of marriage altogether.”

    Idiots don’t realize that it’s not, and can’t be, that simple. Idiots don’t realize that there are hundreds and hundreds of legal rights, duties, benefits privileges and immunities of marital status that cannot be attained by private contract. Idiots also don’t realize that people are already perfectly free to enter into non-state-sanctioned “marriage” contracts (be they religious or otherwise), and thereby forego the aforementioned legal rights, duties, benefits, privileges and immunities.

    Idiots don’t realize that “[g]etting government out of marriage altogether” would require wholesale revision and reconfiguration of every state’s family, matrimonial, child-custody, trust, estate, insurance, tax, evidence, real property, fiduciary and other laws, statutory and common-law, every possible instance in which the law cares whether you’re “married” (someone’s “spouse”) or not.

  • Badgerite

    News flash for the Rand Paul, if state laws do not legally enforce the marriage contract, there is no marriage contract whether the marriage is sanctioned by a church or not. Legal rights are not determined on the say so of a church. Any church. They are the product of state and federal laws. And only state and federal laws. He is basically advocating doing away with the institution of marriage as an enforceable contract in society for everyone. This is even dumber than the Trump Wall.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Legal rights are not determined on the say so of a church. Any church. They are the product of state and federal laws.

      All the more reason the clearly separate the two. Legal arrangement over here, spiritual one separate and apart over there.

  • muselet

    Glibertarians have been arguing for years that the state—excuse me, *scary music sting* The State!—shouldn’t be in the marriage business. I honestly don’t recall what the argument was back in the 1980s (?), but it’s been a thing for a good long while. Funny thing is, their argument really hasn’t changed.

    It’s not like glibertarians haven’t had years to hone their arguments, at least to the point of explaining just what marriage is—which would be a necessary but insufficient first step in any adult discussion—but they prefer to sit back, repeat the same sound bites they did thirty years ago, and smugly wave away any objections, specifically including that pesky “equal protection under the law” stuff.

    Glibertarians are very lazy.

    And Rand Paul is not a serious person.

    –alopecia

    • Christopher Foxx

      Oh, certainly Rand Paul isn’t a serious person. (And Ted Cruz is an idiot.)

      But what’s difficult about the argument about getting the state out of the marriage business? Is it the vocabulary that is confusing things, both sides using “marriage” interchangeable to mean the legal arrangement and the spiritual one? Understandable given that both have been mixed into the single term.

      But the argument doesn’t need honing, nor is it in need of explaining just what “marriage” is. Gov’t should be involved only in the legal arrangement. The contract that specifies (as PostSurgeOperative listed in another comment) “property rights, paternity, custody, rights of consortium and conservatorship, inheritance, and so on”.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        As noted above, there are hundreds upon hundreds of legal rights, duties, benefits, privileges and immunities tied to marital status (“married” / “spouse”) that arise by operation of law, that cannot be attained by private contract. People are already free to enter into non-state-sanctioned marriage contracts and forego the state-sanctioned legal status, and thereby forego the aforementioned rights, duties, benefits, privileges and immunities.

        In other words, civil marriage and religious marriage are already separate. The latter is optional if you want the legal rights, duties, benefits, privileges and immunities of marital status; the former is optional if you don’t. The fact that most people elect both (or, that practically everyone who has the latter also elects the former) is incidental.

        What this boils down to is calling civil marriage something else — and replacing the word “married” wherever it appears in law (i.e., wherever and whenever it matters legally whether you’re married or not) with some other term — and giving the word “marriage” to the church. It’s a stupid and pointless idea whose only practical purpose would be to assuage and/or control people’s feelings about What Marriage Is™.

        • Christopher Foxx

          It’s a stupid and pointless idea whose only practical purpose would be to assuage and/or control people’s feelings about What Marriage Is™.

          And also clarify the distinction between civil unions and religious unions. The don’t-surrender-the-term-‘marriage’-to-the-church argument is as “stupid and pointless” and just there to assuage people’s feelings as the but-‘Marriage’-is-a-HOLY-union one.

          OK, as a practical matter there are civil laws the use the term “marriage” that would have to recognized as referring to “civil unions”. This is that. But it’s a relatively minor part. Letting the term “marriage” be something the church gets is not a big deal.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            And also clarify the distinction between civil unions and religious unions.

            The distinction between civil unions and religious unions is already clear; it requires no clarification.

            I’m not saying “Don’t surrender the term marriage to the church.” I’m saying there’s no reason or need to “clarify the distinction between civil unions and religious unions.”

      • muselet

        Did you not read the article or follow the link? Rand Paul thinks government should, and I’m quoting directly here, “get out of the business of giving out licenses.” That means Paul is arguing there should be no such thing as civil marriage.

        Paul’s argument is nonsense.

        If we as a nation went mad and did what Paul suggests, everyone who is married loses all those things which, as GrafZeppelin127 has already said, cannot be attained by private contract.

        And no, vocabulary isn’t confusing anything or anyone. Kim Davis’s job isn’t to give out pieces of paper certifying that the two people standing before her are good, churchly folk whose relationship deserve to be recognized by her deity of choice, she’s supposed to be issuing documents that the two people standing before her are legally allowed to have their relationship status changed in order to take advantage of all the rights and responsibilities the state has deemed appropriate.

        Changing the name of civil marriage to something else isn’t going to placate god-bothering yahoos like Kim Davis, who hates Teh Gheys so much! she’ll defy the US Supreme Court.

        However, just for the sake of conversation, let’s call the complicated social construct of mutual rights and responsibilities—all the stuff that’s independent of anything religious—something else. “Domestic partnership” sounds appropriate.

        Ask the next married couple you meet if they’d be happy having their marriage redefined as a domestic partnership.

        Just remember to duck.

        –alopecia

        • Christopher Foxx

          Ask the next married couple you meet if they’d be happy having their marriage redefined as a domestic partnership.

          Seems to me folks who are focused more intently on what name gets ascribed to something rather than what they get out of the deal are focused on the wrong thing. “I don’t care if Bill Gates is going to give me half his fortune. If folks are going to say I got some of his “wealth” instead of some of his “fortune”, well, I just do without!”

          • muselet

            Okay, let’s just change the name of an institution. Easy peasy.

            That only means state legislatures will have to amend thousands of laws, rules and regulations, and the federal government will have to amend thousands more laws, rules and regulations. All that should take five minutes, tops. Hey, it’s not as if one major political party is determined to avoid actual lawmaking.

            Seems to me folks who are focused more intently on what name gets ascribed to something rather than what they get out of the deal are focused on the wrong thing.

            I recently read a comment from the mother of a special-needs child, and yes, this is relevant. She has developed a strategy for dealing with people who are shocked that she would take offense to their calling her child “retarded”: she agrees that she shouldn’t be so sensitive, that it’s only a word, that words don’t cause harm, that she should develop a thicker skin, then tells the miscreant, “Thanks, cunt.”

            Words have meanings. Words and their meanings bloody matter.

            And, to repeat myself, Rand Paul advocated eliminating civil marriage or whatever the hell it is you think it should be called completely.

            These are my last words on the topic.

            –alopecia

          • Christopher Foxx

            Words have meanings. Words and their meanings bloody matter.

            Indeed they do. But not all equally and some aren’t worth the fight. “Retarded”, as in your example, has certain historic attitudes and presumptions that come with it and so is a more bothersome term than, say, “slow” or “delayed” which could be equally incorrect but don’t carry the “retarded” weight. Using “nigger” or “negro” to refer to a black person are both incorrect but you know one of those is going to trigger objections much more quickly and vociferously than the other.

            Yes, as I’ve already mentioned, there’s a practical matter of laws that use the term “marriage” and folks having to recognize the intent of those given the meaning of words evolves. But focusing on that as some huge stumbling block is just shifting things from having to voice the real objection: folks don’t want to give the word ‘marriage’ to what they see as the other side.

            And now we’ve both written our last words on this.

  • Christopher Foxx

    This is the dumbest shit.

    No. I realize “dumb shit” is an appropriate knee-jerk response to Rand Paul 99.99% of the time, but this is the 1 in 10000th time.

    “Marriage is not just an emotional agreement or pact between two people; it’s a legal contract with legal consequences.”

    Exactly. You’re making part of Paul’s case for him. Marriage is “not just an emotional agreement.. it’s [also] a legal contract.” And the two should be separate and distinct and gov’t should not be involved in the former.

    Marriage has been a near unique commingling of legal contract and religious status. Getting the gov’t out of the “marriage” business separates the two. Specifying who you are financially and legally entangled with is something that should be spelled out in a civil union. Saying who you are in love with and wish to bond with in some spiritual way is something you take up with your particular church.

    Where is the downside? All those advocating for “same sex marriage” because they want all the legal rights/protections/status that goes with it get all that. And the religious types who are opposed get further separated from the reasonable discussion of unions.

    • Christopher Foxx

      How would the federal government dispense rights and benefits owed to federal employees or military service members if their marriages are not officially recognized?

      Not officially recognized by whom? By some church? Why would they have to be?

      You’re taking the view, it seems, that the legal and spiritual sides HAVE to be together. There is no reason they have to be, and they should not be.

      If “legal marriage”/civil union is a contract situation then the government recognizes it easily. “Spiritual marriage” would be (as it should be) irrelevant from government’s point of view.

      • JMAshby

        No, I’m saying the legal side is all that really matters. It’s why we have laws. It’s why you go to the government and sign a license to get married. The spiritual side is entirely inconsequential and an increasing number of people do not even go through a spiritual ceremony.

        Rand is saying the government shouldn’t be involved at all. That would mean there is no legal side because it’s not recognized by the government.

        He did not enunciate it today, but he has in the past that he believes the legal benefits that come from marriage (taxation, etc) should be discarded.

        He wants to eliminate the legal institution of marriage which is recognized by the state and I’m saying that’s ridiculous.

        • Christopher Foxx

          No, I’m saying the legal side is all that really matters.

          OK. That wasn’t clear. But I take it we’re essentially of the same view.

          I’d make it clearer, however, and agree with the sentiment expressed by Paul to the extent that the gov’t “should get out of the business of marriage” (with its spiritual connections) and leave it solely as the legal arrangement and contract it really is.

          Looking again at the part you extracted, it seems Paul does derp derp himself even on this one:

          “anybody can make a contract. And then if you want a marriage contract you go to a church. And so I’ve often said we could have gotten around all of this also in the sense that I do believe everybody has a right to a contract.”

          So… anyone can make the contract, and everybody has a right to one. They just have to stop by a church to get one.

          Because any church is happy to give one to anyone?

        • GrafZeppelin127

          I think it’s more accurate to say that the “spiritual side” is optional, not “inconsequential.”

          See my comment above. What Rand ignores (or doesn’t get, or is too stupid to get, or some combination thereof) is that people are already free to enter into non-state-sanctioned marriages, including (but not limited to) “religious” ceremonies, and forego all the rights, duties, benefits, privileges and immunities of marital status that arise by operation of law and can’t be attained by private contract.

          All he’s really saying is that we should call civil marriage something else, and give the word “marriage” to the church. It’s a stupid an pointless idea whose ship sailed a long, long time ago.

  • If Rand Paul can’t even make a municipal clerk to respect the legal rights of gay couples, then how does Rand Paul propose to make anyone respect a gay couple’s ‘private contract’s? Apparently, Rand Paul doesn’t believe in rights, he only believes in gifts: there’s no such thing as rights if everyone is entitled to pick and choose which and whose ‘rights’ they will respect.

    While it’s true that many religions consider marriage a sacrament, it is also true that the social and legal institution of marriage originated before any of the great World religions were created.

    Its religious significance notwithstanding, marriage is a civil institution in every respect regarding its legal purpose: establishing legal kinship between two not-too-closely-related adults and conferring through the marital relationship many legal rights and responsibilities including property rights, paternity, custody, rights of consortium and conservatorship, inheritance, and so on.

    Whether G-d sanctions these arrangements is not a fact elected municipal servants are equipped to determine. Moreover, as an executive branch official Ms. Davis’ job is to carry out the law, not to write the law or preside in judgement over the law against the rights and the will of citizens seeking access to government services under her administration. If she’s unable to carry out duties of her office, she should delegate such functions to another official or resign her position forthwith.

    • muselet

      If I may suggest one minor modification to your excellent comment:

      If she’s unable to carry out the duties of her office, she should delegate such functions to another official or and resign her position forthwith.

      That makes more sense to me, anyway.

      –alopecia

    • JMAshby

      If my reading of the situation is correct, she has ordered her subordinates not to issue gay marriage licenses. She -has- delegated in that respect. The employees under her would be the ones who actually handle the paperwork but Davis would have to sign it. This is all about signing a piece of paper.

    • i_a_c

      there’s no such thing as rights if everyone is entitled to pick and choose which and whose ‘rights’ they will respect.

      The central flaw of libertarianism. You put it very succinctly.

  • Aynwrong

    I’m still waiting for some freedom lover to try and marry his AR-15.