Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

[Pop23]

yup...fill those pools kids. If you gotta swim with the gays, we'll just get rid of the pools.

Same bullshit, different decade.

...too a retard. But you've removed all doubt. Anyone marrying anyone offends you? You fucking hypocrite!

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

Gay couples have MORE RIGHTS than hetro couples now.

Oh look, Pops is back. How'd all your silly arguments go in court, Pops? Procreation? Failed!

How do gays have more rights, Pops?

(this is gonna be good)

I listed them above bigot

Showers? That's where your argument is? I'll have you know I'm a firm supporter of artisan communal showers for all.

I also support shower curtains.


Where does that leave you?

Discriminated against.

Today a same sex couple can do exactly what I posted. If a opposite sex couple did the same, one would go to jail and likely be placed on a sex offenders list.

Your turn

 

[JakeStarkey]

...too a retard. But you've removed all doubt. Anyone marrying anyone offends you? You fucking hypocrite!

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

Gay couples have MORE RIGHTS than hetro couples now.

Oh look, Pops is back. How'd all your silly arguments go in court, Pops? Procreation? Failed!

How do gays have more rights, Pops?

(this is gonna be good)

I listed them above bigot

Showers? That's where your argument is? I'll have you know I'm a firm supporter of artisan communal showers for all.

I also support shower curtains.


Where does that leave you?

Discriminated against.

Today a same sex couple can do exactly what I posted. If a opposite sex couple did the same, one would go to jail and likely be placed on a sex offenders list.

Your turn

No, they would not.

 

[Pop23]

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

Gay couples have MORE RIGHTS than hetro couples now.

Oh look, Pops is back. How'd all your silly arguments go in court, Pops? Procreation? Failed!

How do gays have more rights, Pops?

(this is gonna be good)

I listed them above bigot

Showers? That's where your argument is? I'll have you know I'm a firm supporter of artisan communal showers for all.

I also support shower curtains.


Where does that leave you?

Discriminated against.

Today a same sex couple can do exactly what I posted. If a opposite sex couple did the same, one would go to jail and likely be placed on a sex offenders list.

Your turn

No, they would not.

A male striping naked in a women's shower room with a number of non consenting females is not considered indecent exposure?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop, try it and let us know what happens.

 

[Pop23]

Pop, try it and let us know what happens.

Please link your conclusion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop, try it and let us know what happens.

Please link your conclusion.

???

 

[SwimExpert]

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

 

[g5000]

I'm totally with Rand Paul on this one. I've tried to explain eleventy bazillion times to the anti-gay contingent on this forum and out in the real world, if government was not all up in our marriages, same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue. It would be a completely moot point. A couple of guys would go to some other guy who would wave around some candles, toss some confetti, and pronounce themselves married and go off to live happily ever after smoking each other's poles and so what?

And yet the tards want as much government in their marriages as they can get. They actually DEMAND government involvement in their marriages! Give me my government marriage cash and prizes, dammit! And keep those damned faggots hands offa them!

And then they curse at negroes on food stamps. Why don't their heads asplode from cognitive dissonance? How do they compartmentalize their alleged brains like that? How DO they do it?

These people don't want government out of their marriages. They want those cash and prizes and boy oh boy did they get mad when gays asked for the exact same stuff. "Those fags think they are SPECIAL!!!"

The fools are seriously confused. This is what happens when you have an entitlement mindset.

 

[Preacher]

Some states seem to be leaning that way. Mississippi in particular,some counties in Alabama are not issuing ANY marriage licenses....Texas is even better its ignoring the oligarchy court and NOT issuing licenses to faggots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas is doing no such thing.

And it will be issuing licenses by tomorrow morning state wide.

 

[g5000]

It just isn't a sacred institution unless the government says it is.

This is the actual illogic in play here.

 

[bendog]

yup...fill those pools kids. If you gotta swim with the gays, we'll just get rid of the pools.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Cool. Does this mean I can divorce the Mrs. and avoid that pernicious hit to my finances known as child support? This libertarian shite is goooood stuff.

 

[g5000]

yup...fill those pools kids. If you gotta swim with the gays, we'll just get rid of the pools.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Cool. Does this mean I can divorce the Mrs. and avoid that pernicious hit to my finances known as child support? This libertarian shite is goooood stuff.

Prenup contract solves that problem.

 

[bendog]

yup...fill those pools kids. If you gotta swim with the gays, we'll just get rid of the pools.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Cool. Does this mean I can divorce the Mrs. and avoid that pernicious hit to my finances known as child support? This libertarian shite is goooood stuff.

Prenup contract solves that problem.

No that pernicious gummit can set aside my prenup ns the basis of against public policy and FORCE me AGAINST MY WILL to pay child support. Thank God for Rand sticking up for my rights. Whatta guy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A prenup cannot block court order alimony, child support, division of property, etc., if the Standing Master so decrees.

 

[Pop23]

Pop, try it and let us know what happens.

Please link your conclusion.

???

You claimed a male can strip naked in a woman's shower room full of non consenting females and not risk being arrested. Now provide the link

 

[presonorek]

He's right on the money. I've been saying this for years.


Rand Paul Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business
While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?

Thomas goes on to say:

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference.

The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected.

So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?

And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?

We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives.

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.

He's right on the money. I've been saying this for years.


Rand Paul Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business
While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?

Thomas goes on to say:

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference.

The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected.

So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?

And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?

We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives.

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.

I thought government issued marriage licenses were a fairly new invention. Less than 150 years old.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop, try it and let us know what happens.

Please link your conclusion.

???

You claimed a male can strip naked in a woman's shower room full of non consenting females and not risk being arrested. Now provide the link

You have a bad habit of lying.

Those are your words, not mine.

So, Pop, what happened when you tried it?

 

[Seawytch]

...too a retard. But you've removed all doubt. Anyone marrying anyone offends you? You fucking hypocrite!

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

Gay couples have MORE RIGHTS than hetro couples now.

Oh look, Pops is back. How'd all your silly arguments go in court, Pops? Procreation? Failed!

How do gays have more rights, Pops?

(this is gonna be good)

I listed them above bigot

Showers? That's where your argument is? I'll have you know I'm a firm supporter of artisan communal showers for all.

I also support shower curtains.


Where does that leave you?

Discriminated against.

Today a same sex couple can do exactly what I posted. If a opposite sex couple did the same, one would go to jail and likely be placed on a sex offenders list.

Your turn

Challenge the unjust law, Pops...I'm behind you 100%!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

SeaWytch wants to force people to swim with gays

But in the shower room, she wants only gay couples with the right to shower together. Screw the hetro couple.

Gay couples have MORE RIGHTS than hetro couples now.

Oh look, Pops is back. How'd all your silly arguments go in court, Pops? Procreation? Failed!

How do gays have more rights, Pops?

(this is gonna be good)

I listed them above bigot

Showers? That's where your argument is? I'll have you know I'm a firm supporter of artisan communal showers for all.

I also support shower curtains.


Where does that leave you?

Discriminated against.

Today a same sex couple can do exactly what I posted. If a opposite sex couple did the same, one would go to jail and likely be placed on a sex offenders list.

Your turn

Challenge the unjust law, Pops...I'm behind you 100%!!

Yes! Go for it, I am behind you!!!