Rubin: Rand Paul is right on marriage

[jmdrake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-on-marriage/

Methinks Rubin wasn't too happy with Huckabee's kind words toward Rand and is trying to kneecap him with SoCons to have her way on foreign policy. But that's just my guess, and I certainly agree with Rand's position.

Quote what Rand actually said before someone turns this into another "Dr. R. Paul endorsed gay marriage" thread.

Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

I totally agree with ^that and I don't think you'll find much real opposition to it. The federal government is involved in marriage because the federal government is involved in other stuff it has no business involved in. (Income taxes, social security, health insurance etc). A flat tax (or better yet no income tax) would fix the marriage penalty/benefit issue. (And most gays would actually pay more in income tax if they were married). Health insurance is purchased primarily through employers for tax purposes only. Change that (several ways to do so) and health insurance becomes like car insurance. When's the last time you heard someone say "I can't put my partner on my car insurance because the state won't officially recognize our marriage?" That's right. You haven't. Social Security should be a private retirement account that you should be able to pass on to whoever you want if you die. Immigration shouldn't be based on family relationships but on your ability to take care of whoever you bring over. You're too broke to make sure your wife won't go on welfare if you bring her to the U.S.? Be reunited with her in the old country. And if you have a friend you want to sponsor and you can truly assure that he/she won't become a burden on society, then it shouldn't matter whether or not you are romantically involved with that person. Some hospital doesn't want to honor power of attorney for healthcare and let some unmarried partner visit his/her sick loved one? That hospital should be denied any medicare payments. (One thing Obama got right). It shouldn't matter if the persons involved are gay or not or even romantically involved or not. Should a heterosexual couple that's decided not to get a marriage license be mistreated by a hospital?

And for the record, if the things I propose, and I believe Rand Paul agrees with, actually happen, that would fix the "problem" for polygamous groups too. (Well, they have to get past stupid state laws that let a man have 10 baby mammas but puts him in prison if he says "I do" to more than one at once.) But there's no reason for a federal role in marriage period.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Some hospital doesn't want to honor power of attorney for healthcare and let some unmarried partner visit his/her sick loved one? That hospital should be denied any medicare payments. (One thing Obama got right). It shouldn't matter if the persons involved are gay or not or even romantically involved or not. Should a heterosexual couple that's decided not to get a marriage license be mistreated by a hospital?







Does this mean you support the existance of medicare?

 

[jmdrake]

I guess, but his overall stance still seems kind of muddled to me. One day he says that he supports state marriage amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, and the next day he makes it sound like the government should be out of marriage all together. As Freedom Fanatic said it's not really an important issue, but it's good to be consistent.

How is that inconsistent? Rand wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. States should experiment with the "laboratory of democracy." If the federal government quits putting such a heavy boot-print on marriage, and merely protects the rights of individuals not to be trampled on stupidly (i.e. strike down all laws criminalizing alternative marriage which mainly consists of polygamy laws now) everything else can pretty much be handled via contracts. Sure, marriage provides a nice "default" set of "rights" in it's license. (By the way, state defined marriage is not a contract). But those rights can, for the most part, be defined by two individuals without state involvement except for enforcing said contracts.

 

[Brett85]

How is that inconsistent? Rand wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. States should experiment with the "laboratory of democracy."

It just didn't seem completely clear to me whether he simply wants to get the federal government out of marriage, or whether he wants state governments to get out of marriage as well.

 

[jmdrake]

Some hospital doesn't want to honor power of attorney for healthcare and let some unmarried partner visit his/her sick loved one? That hospital should be denied any medicare payments. (One thing Obama got right). It shouldn't matter if the persons involved are gay or not or even romantically involved or not. Should a heterosexual couple that's decided not to get a marriage license be mistreated by a hospital?







Does this mean you support the existance of medicare?

Nope. It means that I recognize it as an existing institution for the foreseeable future. Ron Paul takes the position that it is not right to take away medicare and social security from people who already paid into it and are now vitally dependent on it. Since it is in existence, I don't have a problem with it being used at leverage in the manner I described. Longer term? I dunno. I suppose in a totally free market sensible hospitals that didn't do stupid stuff like violate the clear terms of powers of attorney for healthcare would suffer accordingly. Of course hospitals today benefit from government enforced limits on competition. (You have to have a "certificate of need" to build a hospital. In other words the government has to decide the community "needs" yet another hospital before you can build one. You can't just say "The service of the closest hospitals suck and so I'm going to try to take their customers.)

 

[jmdrake]

It just didn't seem completely clear to me whether he simply wants to get the federal government out of marriage, or whether he wants state governments to get out of marriage as well.

Quoting Rand again:

Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

Changing the tax code only gets the federal government out of marriage. (I'm assuming a U.S. senator isn't trying to change state tax codes.) That said, off of the top of my head I can't think of an instance where my local state is involved in marriage that couldn't be handled by contract. That includes issue of divorce, alimony and child custody.

Edit: And here's where we have to be careful. Rand could sell the "get the federal government out of marriage" position to social conservatives. After all, it's just more of "get the federal government out of everything" view. But not if they think he wants to impose that idea on the states.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nope. It means that I recognize it as an existing institution for the foreseeable future. Ron Paul takes the position that it is not right to take away medicare and social security from people who already paid into it and are now vitally dependent on it. Since it is in existence, I don't have a problem with it being used at leverage in the manner I described. Longer term? I dunno. I suppose in a totally free market sensible hospitals that didn't do stupid stuff like violate the clear terms of powers of attorney for healthcare would suffer accordingly. Of course hospitals today benefit from government enforced limits on competition. (You have to have a "certificate of need" to build a hospital. In other words the government has to decide the community "needs" yet another hospital before you can build one. You can't just say "The service of the closest hospitals suck and so I'm going to try to take their customers.)

OK, first of all, I'd disagree with you on the issue of "Using policies as leverage." Granted, in that case I'd say what you're using leverage for is reasonable, but I still think its a slippery slope. What if the government withheld government services, which you're being forced at gunpoint to pay for, from those who refused to join the army and kill for the state, or those who refused to send their kids to public indoctrination centers*, I mean public schools, or for those who refuse to buy health insurance, or those who make the personal choice to use cigarettes, or drink big sodas (THIS is my vice, 50 oz Double Gulp FTW!!!). Yeah, I'm not too comfortable with using government leverage for any reason. I understand and respect why you say that though.

Secondly, I would also disagree with Ron Paul on the "Compassionate way out" of our system of entitlements. For a long time, I agreed with him, but changed my mind when I realized that the Supreme Court ALREADY RULED that they were wealth transfers. Granted, that should be obvious enough, but SCOTUS already told us that we have no "Right" to receive those entitlements. That alone wouldn't be enough to make me disagree with Ron. If the money were in a vault somewhere, I'd pay it out to those who paid in, pronto. However, it isn't. Government already spent it. Is it right to take any more money (Possibly "Steal" depending on how radical you are) from the taxpayers to continue to hold up those entitlements? The government only has the right to contract its own money, not money taken from taxpayers. And the fact that they were "Counting" on the money doesn't really matter. It matters from a compassion standpoint, but it doesn't really matter from a legal one. Imagine a group of robbers in a small town stole 10,000 dollars per year from each worker, and redistributed it equally amongst all the elderly people in the town, but they falsely claimed it was a "Retirement insurance program." Yet they never stored the money, they always fund it from the yearly robbery. Now, let's say government catches them (Let's assume for the sake of argument that this government is completely legitimate, just for the sake of discussion.) Does that government have a right to say "Sorry, townspeople, but you have to pay into this program for the next 10 years because, you know, those old people are really counting on the money. it really wouldn't be fair to them.." How would you react?

Granted, if gradual abolition were the only way that it would work, that's OK with me. I also realize that that's a bit incompassionate, and I really hope that generous individuals, churches, and charities would pick up the slack. I don't have much money, being a high school student but I'd contribute a little bit. I'm not saying I want them to starve to death. But I don't believe in ANY compromises with thieves (The thieves being the government, who takes our money for entitlements, all the elderly are doing is to take money off the hands of thieves, which is not wrong). Even more directly important, I don't think gradual abolition is possible. I think the moment you started to pull the plug, all the near-seniors would vote in someone else who would restore the program. the only way out is to make sure the American people do not trust the government to stick with the program, and so refuse to let them do it. Immediate abolition would destroy American trust in the government, which is a good thing. If I were a dictator for life (Not endorsing dictatorship, just saying) I'd consider the gradual abolition route, although I'd probably do it by saying "We're only funding it by voluntary donations, if it runs out, it runs out" and simultaneously, donate something to it myself.

So yeah, long story short, I respect the spirit behind Ron Paul's view but I think he's wrong on the gradualist thing as well.

 

[jmdrake]

OK, first of all, I'd disagree with you on the issue of "Using policies as leverage." Granted, in that case I'd say what you're using leverage for is reasonable, but I still think its a slippery slope. What if the government withheld government services, which you're being forced at gunpoint to pay for, from those who refused to join the army and kill for the state, or those who refused to send their kids to public indoctrination centers*, I mean public schools, or for those who refuse to buy health insurance, or those who make the personal choice to use cigarettes, or drink big sodas (THIS is my vice, 50 oz Double Gulp FTW!!!). Yeah, I'm not too comfortable with using government leverage for any reason. I understand and respect why you say that though.

Bad analogy. In this case the hospital is taking government money and then refusing to provide promised services. So in effect it's violating contract. While I don't like the idea of taxes, I less like the idea of my taxes going to an institution that doesn't follow the rules it agreed to when it accepted the money.

Secondly, I would also disagree with Ron Paul on the "Compassionate way out" of our system of entitlements. For a long time, I agreed with him, but changed my mind when I realized that the Supreme Court ALREADY RULED that they were wealth transfers. Granted, that should be obvious enough, but SCOTUS already told us that we have no "Right" to receive those entitlements. That alone wouldn't be enough to make me disagree with Ron. If the money were in a vault somewhere, I'd pay it out to those who paid in, pronto. However, it isn't. Government already spent it. Is it right to take any more money (Possibly "Steal" depending on how radical you are) from the taxpayers to continue to hold up those entitlements? The government only has the right to contract its own money, not money taken from taxpayers. And the fact that they were "Counting" on the money doesn't really matter. It matters from a compassion standpoint, but it doesn't really matter from a legal one. Imagine a group of robbers in a small town stole 10,000 dollars per year from each worker, and redistributed it equally amongst all the elderly people in the town, but they falsely claimed it was a "Retirement insurance program." Yet they never stored the money, they always fund it from the yearly robbery. Now, let's say government catches them (Let's assume for the sake of argument that this government is completely legitimate, just for the sake of discussion.) Does that government have a right to say "Sorry, townspeople, but you have to pay into this program for the next 10 years because, you know, those old people are really counting on the money. it really wouldn't be fair to them.." How would you react?

You're asking me? Different than you would I suppose. And again I'd say this is another poor analogy. I'd compare social security to Enron as opposed to "robbers". Enron was swindlers. And if the Enron company managed to stay afloat, and if I worked there, I wouldn't mind doing what I could to help the pensioners who paid into it in good faith. You're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's wrong. And more importantly, it's a political non-reality.

Granted, if gradual abolition were the only way that it would work, that's OK with me. I also realize that that's a bit incompassionate, and I really hope that generous individuals, churches, and charities would pick up the slack. I don't have much money, being a high school student but I'd contribute a little bit. I'm not saying I want them to starve to death. But I don't believe in ANY compromises with thieves (The thieves being the government, who takes our money for entitlements, all the elderly are doing is to take money off the hands of thieves, which is not wrong). Even more directly important, I don't think gradual abolition is possible.

Ah. You're still in H.S. Easy to be idealistic one way or another at that age. I'm not saying that as a pejorative. Just being real.

I think the moment you started to pull the plug, all the near-seniors would vote in someone else who would restore the program. the only way out is to make sure the American people do not trust the government to stick with the program, and so refuse to let them do it. Immediate abolition would destroy American trust in the government, which is a good thing. If I were a dictator for life (Not endorsing dictatorship, just saying) I'd consider the gradual abolition route, although I'd probably do it by saying "We're only funding it by voluntary donations, if it runs out, it runs out" and simultaneously, donate something to it myself.

So yeah, long story short, I respect the spirit behind Ron Paul's view but I think he's wrong on the gradualist thing as well.

Funny, but you just explained why Ron Paul is right. You just don't see it. If you say "Yank the plug and hope for the best", most Americans, knowing that there are people who legitimately paid into the system and now depending on it, will just tell you to go to jump in a lake. In fact you might not even get a majority of the liberty movement to go along. I certainly wouldn't. Ron's plan is to let people your age opt out. Get people not to trust the government? They already don't trust the government! And they wouldn't trust a government that kept spending billions on wars and foreign aid and then turned around and said "Oops! Sorry seniors. Hope the churches take up the slack". Back to your "robber" analogy, it would be like those same robbers continuing to rob, but only spending the money on hookers and whiskey. Sorry, but that's a political non starter. Cut out the foreign spending, let young people opt out, deal with the current commitments as best we can. Then in a generation or so nobody will be dependent on it at all. At any rate, we're way off thread topic now.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Gay Marriage.. More serious things to talk about like war, economics and the fed.

Not quite sure why the hell we spend that much time on issues that is a no win situation for neither side and get no where.

 

[american.swan]

I guess, but his overall stance still seems kind of muddled to me. One day he says that he supports state marriage amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, and the next day he makes it sound like the government should be out of marriage all together. As Freedom Fanatic said it's not really an important issue, but it's good to be consistent.

It's absolutely muddled and it should be muddled for everyone. Libertarian Rand Paul wants government out of marriage entirely. Constitutional Rand Paul wants to leave it to the states. Personally, family man, Rand Paul is against same-sex marriage. Is that muddled? I guess so.

 

[MaxPower]

It just didn't seem completely clear to me whether he simply wants to get the federal government out of marriage, or whether he wants state governments to get out of marriage as well.

Well, would a federal-level legislator be in charge of such a thing? He only needs to take a position that is relevant to his own actions in office (how he will vote or what kind of legislation he will introduce). Whether state governments are to be involved in the marriage business or not is a matter for state governments to adjudicate.

 

[NY-Dano]

Quote what Rand actually said before someone turns this into another "Dr. R. Paul endorsed gay marriage" thread.

In case this was directed towards me, I had no intention of doing so.

Gay Marriage.. More serious things to talk about like war, economics and the fed.

Not quite sure why the hell we spend that much time on issues that is a no win situation for neither side and get no where.

I agree that there are more important issues, but this is something that is important to a lot of people. Anyone who wants Rand to be elected POTUS need be concerned how his positions are presented. I am rather skeptical about why Rubin decided to write this piece.

I don't think it will. Didn't hurt Ron at all.

I am fairly confident in saying it is the reason Ron lost Iowa last year. I am just concerned that people in the media will try to muddle Rand's somewhat nuanced message.