I Now Pronounce You Party Of The First Part

Rand-in-box-1

It’s been a few weeks since we looked at what Sen. Rand Paul, the brotastic pseudo-libertarian candidate on all sides of all issues has to say, so let’s look inside the box with Schrödinger’s Candidate!

You might recall that last summer Sen. Paul came out in support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. This spring you might recall that Sen. Paul was on record telling us that Marriage Equality offended him and that perhaps the country should move to contracts instead of marriage licenses:

And with that foreshadow, today Sen. Paul wrote an Op-Ed in Time in which he expands upon his theme of contracts v. licenses:

“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.”

But following the Charles Pierce 5-Minute Rule on the Paul family (they make sense until you hit the magic number and then the whole thing turns into a tilt-a-whirl) Paul leaves off the important bits: what happens if all marriages become contracts?

For instance, what happens to tax policy that allows couples to file jointly or have an exemption for dependent children? Or what of property held jointly? Sen. Aqua Buddha sort of leaves those questions hanging. I guess the marriage is only as good as the contract and whoever writes it up will have to be very thorough. Contracts also have starting and ending dates usually. (‬ Britney Spears rejoice! The 30-minute marriage awaits you!)

It’s also worth noting that Sen. Aqua Buddha’s own proposal for a flat tax flies straight into the wood chipper with his latest brain fart, what with deductions for children, etc.

So Sen. Paul, instead of asking us what happens if Government gets out of the marriage business, why don’t you do the legwork to tell us what would happen if your suggestion is adopted?

But in the meanwhile, we might have a test case of his Randian Fantasy: Mississippi (where else) state Rep. Andy Gipson, the chairman of the state house judiciary committee, is floating just such an idea of eliminating state marriage licenses altogether:

“One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson said. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

“Oklahoma lawmakers this year considered a bill that would have had clergy and notaries sign off on marriage paperwork, taking state judges and county clerks out of the process. In Alabama, at least one county stopped issuing any marriage licenses months ago.

“Gipson, an attorney and Baptist minister who opposes gay marriage, caused a stir last year when he said: “I believe the time has come for people of faith in Mississippi to prepare for the overturning of our constitutional ban on it,” noting then that Friday’s high court ruling was inevitable.”

So the state would get out of the marriage bidness, but you would have to have a religious ceremony in order to have the paper work approved and filed? Sorry atheists, you don’t count.

There is no end to the rat-f’ing that Y’all Qaeda will do to hurt the ‘mos, even if it hurts themselves even more.

This entry was posted in 2016 Goat Rodeo, Rand 'Schrödinger's Senator' Paul. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to I Now Pronounce You Party Of The First Part

  1. Ah, the legal wisdom of a self-licensed ophthalmologist. It’s like William Shatner’s musical genius….

    Like

  2. C Montgomery Burns says:

    One last bite before he goes…to read the constitution!!!
    So that’s what he was running to. Or from.

    Like

  3. roket says:

    Republicans: Always fixing something that isn’t broken.

    Like

  4. Big Bad Bald Bastard says:

    But in the meanwhile, we might have a test case of his Randian Fantasy: Mississippi (where else) state Rep. Andy Gipson, the chairman of the state house judiciary committee, is floating just such an idea of eliminating state marriage licenses altogether:

    We have to destroy the village to save the village.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tengrain says:

      Yeah… I can only wonder what the Debutantes of the Magnolia Cotillion think about this.

      Regards,

      TG

      Like

  5. A.J. says:

    “…what happens if all marriages become contracts?”

    Not to worry. All marriages ARE contracts, with a huge number of state and federal laws supporting the questions posed.

    Who do you call when you want to end your marriage ‘contract’? Your clergy? Or your attorney?

    Like

Comments are closed.