Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday finally commented on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, suggesting that the government simply stop recognizing marriage altogether.
In an op-ed published Sunday in Time Magazine, Paul acknowledged that he believes Americans have the right to enter into contracts, but he questioned whether the government should be able to define marriage.
“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,” Paul wrote. “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,” he continued.
Paul referenced counties in Alabama that stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether when faced with the legalization of gay marriage in the state.
The senator and presidential candidate also vowed to protect religious liberties in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere,” he wrote.
Hey,Randy, nobody, but nobody from the federal government has made a single move toward forcing your holy ministers to perform same sex marriages so the government is not interfering with your practice of religion. What, in the end, they will not allow is every yahoo with a gripe against same sex marriage claim “religious persecution”. In short, we will keep our civil laws out of your place of worship and you and your church can keep your bible out of your civil business. Got it? That is how the founding fathers intended regardless of how selectively and erroneously you read your Constitution and your Bible. Your statements make a mockery of both and a lot of us are tired of hearing the blather you spout.
I’'m sure that those who never worked and depend on their spouse’s Social Security will dissent from the latest bullshit eruption out of Ayn Rand Paul’s mouth.
Thus eliminate all tax breaks and rights provided to married couples under the law too? Also, wouldn’t this open the door to what the Rs are most concerned about, a monkey, sheep and an athiest getting married under the veil of their new monkey/sheep based religion?
This isn’t a totally ridiculous position. At the end of the day, marriage is and always has been a contract between 2 individuals. Why have the government bless or deny such a contract, entered into freely by consenting adults? The issue of health care, pensions, Social Security can be dealt with by allowing anyone to designate one other person, beyond their children, as a beneficiary. If 2 siblings want to designate each other, why not? You shouldn’t necessarily have to have sex with someone to decide to share health insurance.
OK–how about we get religion out of government while we’re at it?