Rand Paul:If You Want to Marry Another Woman That You Can Do That and Have a Contract

Most people, at least in the US, will accept earned respect, regardless any person's legal sexual desire. We all have them and frankly they change over the years. I'd suggest most gay's, lead lives together much the same as any man/woman marriage, not concerned with some minor detail in their day to day life and make due with any consequences.

 

Always found it odd to see libertarians insisting that the government must step in and license and regulate gay relationships that were never licensed and regulated before. The antithesis of Libertarian ideology.

- - - Updated - - -

The gays expect it to be dictated by government mandate.

 

I'm not sure what the law says where you are, but in most states here in the US, marriage between close relations is illegal regardless what age or sex the two consenting adults are.

 

I've been saying this for years. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and the state cant discriminate against legal contracts.

 

1-This list are references to cases over Sodomy and SSM. While the 14th A was blamed, it would be hard to argue for SSM, in a State where Sodomy was illegal. It's all about sodomy.

2-Agree, around the world it goes well back into history. States however had far different laws and Sodomy was not illegal in most States well before 2003 or frankly could it be enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage


3-I'm sure there are thousands of related couples living together, maybe sexually involved, that would be happy to gain some benifits or allowed to maintain assets that would go to trial, if approached in the same manner as activist Gay's. Two sister's would be easy under SSM, they can't reproduce, so couldn't be denied a license in States with SSM laws, no incest involved.

 

Yes, inbreeding or incest laws vary in most every States, but with the exception of morality, the reason is the fear of "genetic disorders" (too many like genes) associated with the offspring. As for the thread, if the combination cannot produce a child, incest would be legal, by definition. The second bold a reinforcement of the theory.

 

Sigh, how do you think I feel....

Beating a dead horse, SODOMY was illegal when the 14A was written, was not specifically mentioned and has nothing to do with Sexual Preferences. I understand the argument, disagree with it and don't have the time to explain ALL the "rights issues" that we all could add to the Amendment (if not already done).

I would bet that if a pole was taken in either 1789 or 1865, that 99% would have polled no to legalizing sodomy, .9% saying no opinion and .1% saying to legalize it. I'd also suggest today, most those in favor of Gay relationships, have no idea sodomy is involved.

 

If you had taken a poll in 1789, most would have said women and black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. They would also have said that internet was the work of the devil and asked what the hell baseball was ... that's and inane argument.

Marriage has nothing to do with preferred sexual positions, it is a social and legal contract. The 14th applies to legal contracts - and it applied to marriage when it was written.

 

I would guess that most of those people have no idea they are engaging in sodomy too.

 

Emancipation was already an issue, but the purpose of Independence from England and the uniting of the Colonies, into a single Republic required concessions of principles. Virginia, home to George Washington who fought for the Independence and won, did own slaves, was the primary Colony to get the Constitution and then ratified.

Black's did vote from the formation of the Union, as did many former Indentured Servants from many Nations, so your just wrong on them. I don't know about the Internet, but considering what that Constitution was to mean for the entire world, over time, I'd hardly think they would call progress, the devils work.

I'm sorry, if you don't think sexual desire/attraction has anything to do with Marriage and I'm all for any contracts to bind even emotional feeling of the day, but will oppose when rights of the majority are infringed by a minority.

 

Now your only problem is that the majority of Americans back the rights of gays to marry.

So what now, dude? Your minority is interfering with the rights of the majority.

 

Where does this 'fact' come from?

San Fran? Go to any poor neighborhood where honest people will tell you exactly what they think when there is a poll. Not just what is politically correct. You might be surprised.

 

Where does that fact come from?

That would be about every poll taken by every news and polling organization in the country over the last year.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

 

That question is not before the Court, so it will not be addressed. If you'd like to get the Courts to weigh in on the topic, apply for a license to marry your grandmother, and when it's denied you'll have Standing to file a lawsuit and see what happens. As for me, I don't care if it eventually becomes legal, except for the issue of potential birth defects. I have heard different information from different sources how likely it is, and as I'm not a geneticist, I don't know how real the risk is.

 

There are like 5 people that control 98% of all of the news media in the country (FACT - http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart).
Do you honestly believe that they can't manipulate a few polls? Can you tell me if they like the Church's opinion contradicting their own? Do they have a favorable opinion of the Church?

Fun Fact: Nazi Germany had over 50 news outlets. We have less than 30 in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany_during_World_War_II

Bonus Fun:
Mussollini defined Fascism as the unification of business and state. How much has been contributed this year by corporate interests to political campaigns in 2016?

 

Minus 50 points for bringing up Nazis.

The list of polls I gave you include Fox, Quinnipiac, Pew and Bloomberg. Do you think Fox polls are in the liberals pockets? Even those polls showed a majority for SSM.

Some Christian Churches are now performing SSM services. A small majority of Young Christians support SSM.

 

From a libertarian perspective civil unions work in the respect that they grant certain privileges to consenting adults that they could not get otherwise. It's a legal recognition. That being said, most libertarians regard homosexuality as something that should be practiced in the shadows because it is a biological, psychological and sociological aberration. This is why any society that plans to survive and thrive can never recognize marriage as anything but the relationship between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that is tolerated but should never be celebrated by allowing it to contaminate and degrade historic traditions of society.

 

A 60yo woman and 20yo boy are not likely to conceive a child and the point, or are two sister's or any gay relationships. That's why I don't think the courts would take long to settle, incest law is prevent medical problems of the baby or maybe fetus.

You are correct however, as the article indicated, much of the issue is unconfirmed, probably for lack of evidence. To go extreme, identical twins, would have a 98%+ identical genetic structure, and logically that would create a problem....The Incest Laws do seem to be based on morality, which is fine with me.

 

My point is that the question of incestual relationships is NOT before the Court with the SSM marriage cases they're about to hear. Ergo, they will NOT be made legal, even if the Justices think they should based on the same arguments. They ONLY rule on the questions presented, not any others, even if they are close or virtually identical logical conclusions.

 

Marriage is a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.(“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013); quoting Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942).

It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law; and the Supreme Court has ruled that each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states' rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people. The state bans on same-sex marriage are being struck down; and now, the Supreme Court will make it the law of the land.

Still, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get more than we would want. Invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can have large, unintended consequences. The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

 

Sodomy is entirely irrelevant. You seem disturbingly obsessed with it.

This is irrelefant to my post.

Also no relevance to my post.

Try addressing what I actually said .

 

Dude, what is your obsession with sodomy? It is completely irrelevant to this debate.

But it is quite fun.

 

Wait, what rights are the majority having infringed?

 

On April 28, 2015, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in several cases granted certiorari on issues relating to same-sex marriage. The questions for review are: (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? And (2), does the amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? It would appear from the framed issues granted review that the Supreme Court is now poised to set aside the precedent made by its dismissal of the of the direct appeal in the case of Baker v. Nelson. (Citation Omitted). On these questions, the writing is on the wall: The will of the citizens of the several states to vote laws on the definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples does not trump the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are explicit: ". . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The assertion that the Tenth Amendment sanctions the right of a state to enact and enforce laws in violation of these constitutional protections is specious; and certainly contrary to decisions of the Supreme Court binding as precedent. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1974); and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). In order for the Tenth Amendment argument to prevail, the Supreme Court would have to overturn these prior decisions; and that is not likely to happen.

 

Absurd for the gays and their advocates to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, because married couples are not required to procreate. Because we allow couples to marry whether they have the intent or ability to procreate. And at the same time argue that any and all closely related couples, EVEN closely related couples of the same sex, must be excluded because of the potential of procreation and possibility of genetic defects.