Rand Paul is for "gay contracts" not " gay marriage".

Sorry, DP.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


1. If we had done things long ago, it would be different now, it's true. But we didn't.

2. If Rand Paul is offended by something and wants to use a different word so he'll feel batter, isn't that the same as using "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien"? Or "LGBT" instead of "queer"? In other words, he's offended and wants a more politically correct option. And that's fine, but he wants everyone to be forced to use it! Who does he think he is?

It wold appear from his own words that he would prefer that it be just "a contract" for all people, not just for gay marriages.

Not from what I've read. He is talking specifically about "gay marriage". He talks of marriage being between a man and a woman and "competing contracts" for gay people, whatever that means. He's not talking about everyone being in contract, just the gay people.

The fact that you say, "JUST a contract" shows that it's not thought of as EQUAL to marriage. It's fine that he has preferences, but it makes no sense to me to have to change what I call my relationship with my husband so other people won't be offended... It's like making Charlie Hebedo stop printing pictures of Mohammad because people are offended... Do you support that?

I assume that the reason the term "marriage" offends him is because, historically speaking, marriage has been a religious institution done to make a promise in the eyes of god.

But marriage predates religion, so that's not true. And even if you're right - let's pretend that that marriage has historically been a religious institution, it's not like that now in the US. A marriage contract is issued by the state. People have the OPTION to have a religious ceremony, but without that state license, you aren't legally married. A religious ceremony is not necessary at all. You don't see religious people suggesting that atheists use another word... Although I'm pretty sure atheism is also not accepted by his god.

If he contends that his religious stance is that homosexuality is not accepted by his god, then I get why he'd be against using the word.

Oh, I get it, too. I understand what he's saying. But we don't all practice his religion. (Read my signature) We don't always have the choice to make other people behave differently so that we feel better. The FACT is that other people's marriages have NOTHING to do with Rand Paul's or the religious people's that he's speaking for. If he doesn't want to utter the word "marriage" when talking about a gay couple, he's free to do that.

It seems as if he's not talking about separate-but-equal, at least in my assessment--he's lamenting the fact that, for government purposes, it wasn't just called "a contract" to begin with, and now the term "marriage" is causing the issue, not the legally-binding union in the eyes of the government.

The term "marriage" isn't causing a problem. The resistance of equality for gay people is causing the problem. There is NO problem with us all using the term "marriage". It has ZERO effect on anyone's marriage. There is no right not to be offended.

He says: “I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we’re still headed.” He's not just lamenting.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

First, I never said that there is a problem with all of us using the word marriage--you're barking up the wrong tree, here. And I don't think separate-but-equal is the way to go. I do, however, feel that it'd be better to remove the term "marriage" out altogether and just make it a civil contract--hell, marriage really is "JUST a contract" as it stands now, just with the word "marriage" in it. Religions could still hold on to the word all that they want, as could anyone else, but the official government status would change words from "married" to something else, still providing all the same stuff.

Of course, I think that Oklahoma's new proposal is the right way to do it--just get the states out of the "marriage"-certificate game altogether and leave it to those getting married to figure it out. The new marriage certificate or affidavit if common-law marriage would not indicate titles (bride or groom, husband or wife), and would be handed out by judges or a religious leader, but removes all culpability of the county in officiating a ceremony or signing of the certificate. The more we can remove government from the marriage issue, the better off we'll all be. At least this proposal in Oklahoma is a start.

But we can agree to disagree on Paul's intended meaning. Lik I said, though, I have no problem with marriage all around for everyone--but being an atheist myself, I'd prefer the word be removed from the contract and it be called something else like a "civil union." But maybe that's just me, who knows.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

First, I never said that there is a problem with all of us using the word marriage--you're barking up the wrong tree, here.

I didn't think you did. I thought we were talking about how Rand feels. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was arguing with Rand... And I didn't mean to bark. Sorry if it seemed that way.

I do, however, feel that it'd be better to remove the term "marriage" out altogether and just make it a civil contract--hell, marriage really is "JUST a contract" as it stands now, just with the word "marriage" in it. Religions could still hold on to the word all that they want, as could anyone else, but the official government status would change words from "married" to something else, still providing all the same stuff.

That is certainly an option and I don't have any problem with that. I just think of the red tape a change like that would create and it's pretty overwhelming and I can't see the government's interest in doing such a thing.

The more we can remove government from the marriage issue, the better off we'll all be. At least this proposal in Oklahoma is a start.

Really? That's just religion co-opting the word AND the institution...

Under his proposal, marriage certificates could be signed only by a religious official, who would then pass the certificate along to the clerk. Judges could no longer perform legal marriages.

While couples who didn’t have a religious official handy could still qualify for a common law marriage, this still means only church-sanctioned relationships could be legally, formally recognized.
...
This measure is not only exclusionary to LGBT folks who may be barred from religious ceremonies, as well as atheists and others who wouldn’t opt for a religious marriage

S ource

So, you and I wouldn't be able to get "married". We'd be on our own to come up with some kind of contract and we wouldn't get any of the federal benefits that marriage brings.

If religious people could show that they're somehow "damaged" by other people using the word (that doesn't belong to them, by the way), then maybe they'd have a point.