-2 votes

So What Kind of Social Conservative Are You?

If you describe yourself as a "social conservative", what kind are you?

Do you think the government should be involved in discrimination or regulating people's private lives or do you think we should "live and let live" and JUST focus on Fiscal Issues?

Or.... do you side with Rob Portman and Rand Paul who are both Social Conservatives who have evolved on marriage equality. Rand Paul most recently said he wanted to “shake up the Republican position.”

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” said Paul. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How can gays be married without church or givernment.

We all agree, churches should be allowed to set their own marriage policies.

We all agree government should have no role in marriage.

How do you suppose gays get married without some sort of court or other government institution?
Assuming all churches don't allow it.

I was given this scenario a while back, my response was that government shouldn't be required for consenting adults to call themselves married, but marriage is a creation of church/religion. So government shouldn't recognize ANY marriage.

The question is based on a

The question is based on a false premise.

There ARE churches out there that will allow gay couples to marry. It may not be the Catholic Church, or Protestant, or whatever, but there ARE churches out there that support gay marriage.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


this is an issue much deeper than just "gay marriage"

it has to do with social security, spouse benefits through your employer, veterans spouses, insurance, hospital care, visitation rights, property rights, parental rights, adoption rights, discrimination rights, immigration rights, etc etc, i know I'm missing many more....

If a christian lost their rights and only had the same rights gays get these days, we'd have riots in the streets!

You can "marry" whomever you want. Legal marriage = commerce.

And yet many married folks are elitist snobs about being "members of the club". As if it is some sorta competition or something.

Some friends of mine, who have been with their legal spouses for shorter periods of time than my common law woman and I have been together, seem to somehow not take us seriously. Lol! As if we're less in love / not committed because we've not tied the knot, legal-like. (These are the same clowns who forget their anniversaries from time to time! I shouldn't make fun, however; our anniversary is easy: we met and hit the ground running on the 4th of July....)

I used to brush it off, but now I get in their respective grills... asking them why they felt they had to prove anything to anybody, reminding them of their detrimental change in tax status, telling them that simple estate planning / living wills can accomplish the same things insofar as asset possession lineage after death, etc. (Just to F--- wid 'em, because people who sneer deserve their cages rattled!)

Legal marriage = commerce / issue of law. Well, draw up a legal contract with your lover, and badah bing! No prob! To hell with what others think.

As legal "singles", my lady and I can each get tax credits for separate homestead properties, whereas if we were legally married we'd only get one. WTF? Legal marriage is a scam driven by societal pressures to conform and misinterpretations of religion(s).

Sorta related is the situation with kids and taxes. I pay more in taxes for my friends' kids to go to school than they do, since they get credits for popping out rug rats, and we do not have chilluns.... Ha! The system is indeed rigged to incentivize people to produce more little future taxpayers... never mind the publicly-funded welfare mom situation. (How wacky our country has become!)

What would the Founders do?

Wow you really said all of that. Trying to be nice here....

I'm going to have to think about all that and try and come up with a response for you, that is not as rude to you , as that was to me.

In the mean time, why don't you look up the cost to legally do all of the things you think me and my partner should do, as a gay couple, that comes FREE with every heterosexual marriage each day and every day.

Didn't mean to be rude, just

trying to empower you with truth--albeit highly unpopular truth.

(I suppose my common law wife and I are insanely "super-liberal" with this issue....)

People become so "rubbed the wrong way" and even aggressive when one questions the Institution of Legal Marriage. In medieval times marriage was often simply a promise between two people. Why is that not enough? Is that not a spiritual event in and of itself? Cannot that happen just as purely and wonderfully before one's creator / deity / Mother Earth / etc.? (And WTF, hetero legal marriage is a shambles anyway, right? Look at the divorce rate, for Christ's sake! Their poor record does / has done far more harm to our society and its children, etc. than any threat of gays marrying would introduce. Ah, the hypocrisy!)

Why all the hubbub and the expenditure and the Vera Wang dress and Uncle Scam stamping a new tax status on your forehead when entering into legal marriage? My Uncle and his husband married of their own accord, without the legal construction. They were a beautiful couple and were happy (Sadly, my uncle's husband passed on, however.). A little living will prep is not prohibitively expensive (You may even spend more on your legal marriage through taxes over time.), and it IS forever / WILL last through everyday of your marriage, right? Because you've set up a documented legal framework for inheritance / D-N-R medical issues / right of attorney / etc.

Listen, please don't take offense at what I say. You must do what makes you happy. Live your dream and fight for it. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that my occasional cynicism comes off perhaps abrasively. Clearly the marriage issue is one of discrimination. And that is wrong. I support equality, and thus your plight; I just want people to know that marriage--*real* marriage--can in fact be defined between two people who love each other and doesn't have to be accomplished through institutional channels, organized Houses of Mythologies, or anything else. Gitcha your friends and fam and have at it!

This will interest you: Somewhat off topic, but at my lady's former place of employment (big, national chain restaurant which I won't name) benefits WERE extended to un-legally-married partners of employees in same-sex relationships, but WERE NOT extended to un-legally-married partners of employees in hetero relationships! Read it again, please. This to me opens a whole new frontier of prejudice and the appropriate battle against it. So this effort to include people in same-sex relationships in benefits coverage (a good thing) reveals a prejudice toward / disapproval of "we-hetero-lovers-who-are-too-lazy-to-get-married / faking-it / not-serious-and-should-get-married-legally / etc. / blah blah blah...." I find it mildly comical, honestly. I am GLAD that same-sexers are being covered, but is not the inequity apparent here?


What would the Founders do?

I want to conserve social

I want to conserve social values by keeping government immorality out of it..

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

sounds nice

but how do you mean?

The term "Social Conservative" ...

... is usually used in the context of being a code (euphemism) for an anti-liberty position regarding peoples' personal lives.

Social conservatives are often people who are opposed to freedom in drug use, prostitution, gambling, marriage, and other non-crime activities.

Social conservatives are not libertarians because they want to use the force of government to prevent freedom in the personal realm (even though they are generally in favor of freedom in the financial realm).

Some social conservatives think of themselves as maintaining tradition. But if you think about it, throughout most of human history, the state did NOT license marriages. The state played no role. It was a tribal, religious, and/or personal ceremony and way of life, but had nothing to do with the state.

It was not until 19th Century America that the marriage license came into being as a means of the state regulating interracial marriages.

Today, the marriage license is evidence of state recognition ... but recognition in what sense? Really, it is ONLY recognition in state-related matters, namely (a) tax brackets and (b) default legal positions regarding inheritance, and (c) default legal positions regarding dissolution.

If a person is viewed as "married" by the state, then their spouse is the default inheritor of their assets upon death and can be included in their tax bracket. But those things can be overridden by agreement, trusts, or other legal entities (for inheritance or dissolution), or by filing separate tax returns (for taxes).

Since we can walk into any bookstore and buy books with forms on creating corporations, partnerships, trusts, and wills, complete with suggestions on which clauses to include or not, there is no reason we cannot have a society whereby we ELIMINATE the state from marriage, and people can create their own agreements (bookstores would then start carrying books on "How to Create a Marriage Agreement").

The state's laws are really just the default position, but everyone treats it as the ONLY way it CAN be done.

No. The state should get OUT of validating marriages or not validating them. This would end the arguments at the political level, and make it irrelevant.

Then, we can ask "social conservatives" why they are against liberty when it comes to alcohol, other drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other non-crime activities.

Is it just their own personal desire to control other people? If so, they are no better than leftists who want to control people in the financial realm.

Liberty applies to ALL areas of life -- provided one does not violate the equal rights of another. The state can just get the hell out, unless and until a violation has occurred (which does happen, but not all that often in most peoples' lives).

I am the core

of the leave me alone coalition!

Just remember

I know a lot of people default to the Catholic church when this issue comes up but remember there is more than one religion and they all have different views on what is and what is not marriage.

hey Camaro, how've ya been?

I wouldn't step foot into a church to get married! lol But this isn't a religious issue anymore than black civil right were imo.

poll - heck no

end poll

I think we found the CPAC people who voted for Santorum!

I think I've seen the woman @ :28 here of the DP! I hope she is having a blast at CPAC! LOL

Lighten up people And learn to love your neighbor!!

Use your words, don't just down-vote. Just because YOU are unhappy and "holier than thou", doesn't mean everyone else should be too.

It's sad to see people down-voting other people's jokes and benign, loving comments out of spite.

If you don't like the thread, go some where else.

tasmlab's picture

What about single people??

What about single people who don't get preferential tax treatment? That's bullshit too. It's even sadder to think of these people who are single because they haven't (or incapable) of finding a true love.

Double for people who pay for schools when maybe they couldn't experience the joy of children.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

This isn't JUST a "tax issue",

if you took away left-handed peoples right to marry or invalidated christian marriages...it wouldn't be a "tax issue" to people on here...it would be exactly what it is...DISCRIMINATION.
I think we should have a broad ranging debate with this , but let's not obfuscate the issue entirely.

I agree but there isn't outright discrimination towards singles

there is no threat of being fired or beat up or even killed for being single.

And government sanctioned marriage solves that?

I don't care who marries who, but the discrimination angle never quite makes sense because they never actually demonstrate actual discrimination. There is a threat of being fired or beat up or even killed for being anyone alive and getting married doesn't fix that.

Look Mike, the next time you google "gay sex"

try something else and type in "gay discrimination" and see what pops up.

The ending might be different but I think it will be just as surprising for you!

Wasn't talking to you Mike

The point/response I was making with that comment is clear. I'm sorry you misunderstood it --I know that must be very tiring for you.

tasmlab's picture

Or being a red head or annoying

But the discrimination in tax code is from the STATE. Big difference.

Oddly, my gay friends are big lefty state promoters, despite it being the only anti-gay institution they are forced to associate with

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

I get it, like I said I agree

and you can tell your friends that the first gay rights pioneers were not pro-government folks.

They wanted the *government* off their backs.

I'm a social conservative and

I'm a social conservative and a christian. Personally, it really doesn't matter to me what the states define marriage to be. As long as churches are able to dictate their own policies, i could care less. In terms of treatment, I 100% think we should have equality between gay and straight couples. It doesnt make any sense to have preferential treatment of one or the other based on any groups set of values.

Socially, as a christian, i think its extremely unfortunate that the narrative of Christianity has (at least for some people) centered around being discriminatory/hateful towards gays. I think it's so completely opposite of what the message of Jesus is.

Its a clever move by Rand to get govt out of marriage

Yes, its a clever move by Rand to get govt out of marriage and I support it. Get govt OUT of the tax code and OUT of the courts and OUT of our bedrooms.

And in reply to the RedState essay, Yes the tipping point has been reached, Americans now favor gay marriage. Yes those on the pro-gay-marriage-left WANT government involved. And Yes, like all good conservatives who WANT GOVT OUT of everything else, like Rand Paul we want govt out of Marriage, we want it 'privatized' not 'governmentized'.

The question was asked, what about the children? Like all private marriages and the marriage contract, that gets decided upon signing the contract.

Finally, perhaps the best thing about privatizing marriage, these one size fits all divorces where upon child support, child custody, spousal support, and "half the marriage assets" are divided, can be changed to better reflect the people involved. From Hollywood stars who are multi-millionaires to the local stewardess working for tips, no one marriage contract is right for all people. Each marriage contract should be customized for the parties involved, just as all private contracts are done today. So the question of children and who gets what, that is all decided prior to the wedding day.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Love this!

The idea that couples could create a contract that would fit them is perfect.

Rand MUST support marriage equality to stay relevant for 2016

The country is changing and candidates for president will no longer be able to be for restricting marriages and the rights of gays. DOMA and Prop 8 will be overturned by SCOTUS this June and equality will be set in stone. Rand can't win the presidency in 2016 being anti-gay. That attitude is now only held by the elderly and fundamentalist christians. Rand MUST support marriage equality to stay relevant for 2016 and we are seeing that now, with his new comments.

Had a feeling...

...it was your post. :) lol

Seriously, though -- wouldn't the best thing be for government to have absolutely nothing to do with marriage in the first place? Leave the definition of it up to individuals and whatever social groups/houses of faith they prefer.

of course the best thing is for government to mind it's own

business and while we are at it...it should never tax, kill brown people, spy, lock up drug users, etc, etc..

BUT the fact is that I can't marry who I love.

And there are two sets of rules right now for straight people and gay people and it doesn't just have to do with marriage or the government intruding...it has to do with the government using it's power to pick winners and losers.