On Wednesday afternoon U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker 
Rand Paul drawing fire for Anti-Gay Marriage stance, but views are more Anti-Government involvement
by Eric Dondero
A flurry of media attention is now on libertarian Republican candidate for US Senate Rand Paul, ever since SurveyUSA found last week, Paul pulling ahead of the GOP field for the first time. With the attention, comes increased scrutiny of his views. One of the issues Paul’s being called on is Gay Marriage.
From the AP, Nov. 10:
This is a difficult tightrope to walk,” said [Univ. of KY Poli Sci Prof. Stephen] Voss, who nonetheless believes Paul may be the front-runner right now. “When he’s talking economics and money, he is philosophically a libertarian. When he talks about social issues, he’s sending guarantees to the right wing that he’s not libertarian.”
He also opposes marriages between gay and lesbian couples. At the same time, he voices staunch opposition to government intruding in the private lives of citizens.
What the article doesn’t specify is that the libertarian approach to the issue is to oppose “government sponsored” Gay Marriage. The distinction is hugely important.
Rand Paul, and other generally Right Libertarians have no problem with a Gay or Lesbian couple having a marriage ceremony in a public park or public facility with a couple of attorneys, a priest or rabbi, and scores of friends and family. Any libertarian would of course, be fiercely opposed to any local government regulations prohibiting the issuance of such a permit.
They want to get married. Have at it. But why should the government be involved?
Libertarians would eventually like to “privatize marriage” altogether, including for heterosexual couples. Essentially, let the churches and synagogues handle it.
What rankers libertarians is the affirmative action aspect of Gay Marriage; government health care coverage, special hiring quotas, regulations forcing businesses to provide benefits to gay partners, ect…
The younger Paul is on entirely solid ground with his stance from a libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, liberal media types don’t take the time to look into the alternative libertarian perspective on the issue. They’re still stuck in that old rut of liberals in favor of gay marriage vs social conservatives strongly opposed. They can’t comprehend the Right Libertarian view; Just keep the government out of it altogether.
Last 5 posts by Eric Dondero
- The Left's Worst Nightmare: Faisal Shahzad is a Muslim, an Immigrant and most of all a Democrat - May 5th, 2010
- Terri McCormick, Constitutionalist Republican for Congress – Wisconsin - April 17th, 2010
- NYC’s Libertarian City Councilman Dan Halloran goes International, meets with Bulgarian conservative delegation - April 17th, 2010
- Texas GOP Run-offs: Party takes a Hard Right turn - April 15th, 2010
- Tea Party Express to Announce Targets for Defeat - April 13th, 2010
Poorly written.
Well written.
According to RON Paul whom I support on many other issues: The governmental status quo must be maintained in that MARRAIGE is strictly between a one man and one woman as “defined” by Federal Standards. In other words Libertarians do NOT advocate EQUAL RIGHTS period.
This shows why libertarians are often received with skepticism by gay & lesbian people. They say “why should the govt be involved”–the govt is already involved–if they want to change those laws, fine, but they shouldn’t pretend there is not inequality.
Marriage is a contract, and like all contracts, contracts should be between whoever enters into them.
The anti-government stance on marriage is a little silly. The courts need to have an objective definition of marriage, for the same reason they need an objective definition of a corporation.
Good sensible idea. Marriage should not be right for one class of people, and forbidden for another. What kind of equality is that??? And gays should be allowed to serve in the military — throwing them out for no good cause is weakening our defense. (Thank God that dumb DADT is finally going to be thrown out.)
But Rand, I saw you on Anderson Cooper’s show. You actually uttered the words: “Sarah Palin would make a great president?!?!?!” Were you smoking a blunt when you said that????
From my perspective the way to distinguish between a real Tea Party type person vs. an angry republican looking for anyway to get back into power is to determine their stance on gay marriage. From a constitutional perspective I think either all marriages are going to have to be classifed as “civil unions” (same sex or not) or you will have “gay marriage.” If you believe in the constitution, which is what the Tea Party folks base almost all of their positions on, officially sanctioned discrimination of any sort against American citizens cannot be tolerated.
Oh yeah one more way to tell: if they support Sarah Palin or not. If they support Sarah Palin they are just another republican under cover of a popular movement. They will fold to the pressures of the political system just as most politicians are doing now.
great thoughtful comments on this poorly written article… given what we see on the internet i’m shocked, thanks all for restoring some confidence in humanity.
As a gay man who agrees strongly with the concept of very, very limited government, I also do not feel the government has the authority over me and my life to attempt to dictate what’s proper in my personal life. I, as a gay man, have absolutely no interest in special rights that separate me from the general citizenry but I do feel that it’s time for all to accept sexually blind integration into the rights and obligations of being an equally contributory member of this nation. There are over 1,100 federal programs, rights, obligations, laws that exclude gay people. We’re talking 10’s of millions of people, not an insignificant number. But those numbers don’t mean anything. If it were only 10’s of people, it still wouldn’t be right.
I agree the article is poorly written, but the issue is of great importance. Currently, religious institutions act as agents of the state in their ability to marry people. However, there are couples, both gay and heterosexual, that are atheist, and do not wish culturally constructed institution based on the presumed notion of god to forced upon them. This is hardly a Libertarian position. Moreover, such religious institutions are not subject to taxation. If Rand was a true Libertarian, he would ensure that churches are not “bailed out” by giving them a free tax ride. In essence, they should pay their way like everyone else. Lastly, if Rand wants to discriminate against hard working tax paying Gay and Lesbian couples by not allowing them the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, then he should be preaching that no one gets any benefits. Again, such a stance is not only un-Libertarian, it is un-American.
Dondero is always pimping Republican whores. As for Rand Paul being against government involvement in marriage, like his hypocritical father, that didn’t stop him from getting married. So while claiming gays should get married due to his opposition to state involvement, it is okay for him to get married in spite of that involvement. Hypocrite. Rand Paul is a social conservative not a libertarian. He only is libertarian when he wants to raise funds.
Chris,
You don’t have to get married in a church, temple, synagogue, etc these days if that is not your thing. You can do that at city hall, in front of a town official, in front of a justice of the peace, or whatever your state and community provide for.
Thusly, atheists have an officially recognized alternative to getting married in places of worship if they find such unsuited to their way of life and to their idea of where to marry.
So, if an atheist can marry at City Hall or in front of a justice of the peace, then noone “is forcing God on you” in the name of getting married since you have non-God choices as to where to be married.
I support choice of location for couples wanting to marry according to creed or none.
I witnessed straight and gay there to be married at San Francisco’s magnificent City Hall when marriage equality was possible in that city in 2004 and later when in 2008 when for a brief while, marriage equality for gay and straight alike was a reality in California.
So, they were marrying at City Hall, which something atheists straight and gay can do where and when marriage equality is the law of the local state. (Unfortunately, marriage equality was ripped away from future gay couples wishing to marry in California, however, the marriages of 18,000 CA gay couples who already married were allowed to remain legal.)
Steve,
I do not support any party or any candidate who is against marriage equality.
There are now 8 countries in the world that support marriage equality for gay and straight alike AT THEIR FEDERAL LEVEL. Portugal (the latest to do so)Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa, Canada. Iceland may become the 9th to do so this June.
Next few years may see other countries doing so.
Even Mexico City has legalized marriage equality. Nepal is considering it. Some talk of it was in Argentina. Luxembourg may on board next year. Finland maybe in a couple of years.
USA is on the way to becoming the only officially English-speaking modern Western democracy remaining to not have some kind of federal level recognition of same-sex relationships.
Australia that is the other one in that regards.
Canada has marriage equality, New Zealand has the kind of civil unions in its country that is equal to marriage, and UK has its civil partnerships.
So, the world is changing and leaving the USA behind in several areas including levels of federal recognition of same-sex relationships in various countries.
Marriage is one of the most sacred ceremonies that we humans experience. Being married also gives us happines.::,
This is clearly a mis-characterization of Paul’s position on same sex marriage. In fact it’s a mis-characterization of the Libertarian Party’s position on the subject. Paul is definitely opposed to same sex marriage and it has nothing to do with state’s rights. So much for his beliefs in personal liberty and limiting the reach of government into citizen’s personal lives! While he may be a libertarian on some issues, on social issues he is a conservative.
I fail to understand the argument here. What they have a problem with has nothing to do with homosexuality. Unless they oppose government heterosexual marriage as much as they oppose government homosexual marriage, they cannot call their position on that issue libertarian, period. Given that government marriage (and requirements placed on employers, etc.) isn’t likely to go away, libertarians should, in the mean time, fight for marriage equality with the current imperfect situation.
marriage is great specially if you have found a very special someone that is beautiful both on the inside and outside.,.;