Monday morning thinks

[britbratjf]

So I think most of you know that my H (and me formally) works for the state Republican Party. He has a very strong Libertarian leaning though and really likes Rand Paul. He sent me this article & I thought it was interesting.

time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/?xid=tcoshare

I don't necessarily think it's a terrible idea, especially since if you look back historically government basically started licensing marriage to restrict who was able to get married (no interracial marriage) wand keep track of inheritance. But I don't really know that it's practical to just get rid of marriage licenses. FTR this isn't saying that only people who get married in the church should be able to call themselves married - just that two individuals should be able to draw up a contract between themselves & be married rather than the government licensing it.

I thought it could create some interesting discussion! I know we've got some smart ladies here who could argue against this & my H way more effectively than I was able to last night (I was totally lawyered).

[summergirl1211]

I just started reading this, but can I say how annoying it is to have every sentence be its own paragraph??? I'm not sure if Rand wrote it that way or it was edited that way but I almost can't read it like this.

[jodielyn10]

My argument to Rand would be that we can't un-ring the bell that his been rung. It's a nice idea - take government out of the equation of marriage altogether and let free individuals contract themselves to one another as they see fit. But the fact is that benefits ARE tied to marriage, in the public and private sector. Marriage has been woven in to laws, benefits, insurance, compensation, burial rights, medical rights, taxes, and on and on. In theory, should marriage have been co-mingled with the rights and benefits bestowed on people by the state and by private employers? Maybe not, but the deed is done. It is unrealistic to think that we can go back and change it now - and because the government has seen fit over the course of generations to bestow particular rights and privileges on married couples - the 14th Amendment guarantees gay and straight people alike equal protection under those laws.

[summergirl1211]

Jun 29, 2015 8:27:37 GMT -5 jodielyn10 said:

My argument to Rand would be that we can't un-ring the bell that his been rung. It's a nice idea - take government out of the equation of marriage altogether and let free individuals contract themselves to one another as they see fit. But the fact is that benefits ARE tied to marriage, in the public and private sector. Marriage has been woven in to laws, benefits, insurance, compensation, burial rights, medical rights, taxes, and on and on. In theory, should marriage have been co-mingled with the rights and benefits bestowed on people by the state and by private employers? Maybe not, but the deed is done. It is unrealistic to think that we can go back and change it now - and because the government has seen fit over the course of generations to bestow particular rights and privileges on married couples - the 14th Amendment guarantees gay and straight people alike equal protection under those laws.

I couldn't have said it better myself. How could you undo everything that has been done? 

Also, I have an issue with his comments on how the founders were "raised up by God" and our rights being bestowed to us by the Creator. But that's a whole other debate.

[britbratjf]

Jun 29, 2015 8:27:37 GMT -5 jodielyn10 said:

My argument to Rand would be that we can't un-ring the bell that his been rung. It's a nice idea - take government out of the equation of marriage altogether and let free individuals contract themselves to one another as they see fit. But the fact is that benefits ARE tied to marriage, in the public and private sector. Marriage has been woven in to laws, benefits, insurance, compensation, burial rights, medical rights, taxes, and on and on. In theory, should marriage have been co-mingled with the rights and benefits bestowed on people by the state and by private employers? Maybe not, but the deed is done. It is unrealistic to think that we can go back and change it now - and because the government has seen fit over the course of generations to bestow particular rights and privileges on married couples - the 14th Amendment guarantees gay and straight people alike equal protection under those laws.

This was basically my argument. It's maybe a good idea in theory but impractical to implement. this is basically how I feel about a lot of Rand Paiuls ideas!

[sarasansh]

What others have said--just the expense/paperwork alone of having to untie so many knots rather than just tying one more doesn't seem feasible.

Side note, in Pennsylvania (and I think a few other states) you can get a self-uniting marriage license, which means two consenting adults can marry themselves without the need of a licensed officiant. I know Pa has it because of the high percentage of Amish and Quaker populations.

[cookiesandwine]

I Rand. That is all.