<p>Ron Paul is not libertarian when it comes to marriage, both he and his son support the DOMA act which de facto allows one state not to recognize a legal marriage in another state, and has also introduced legislation that would forbid judges from ruling on whether DOMA is constitutional or not. DOMA de facto gives the federal government the right to decide what a legal marriage is and more importantly, invalidates the full faith and credit clause that generally makes it binding on states to accept the laws of other states, like on marriage. If he was a true libertarian, he would argue that the government if they are going to grant benefits to couples has no right to decide which ones to recognize and which one not, but he is all over the place with that. He does say ultimately it should come down to a private contract, which if the government recognized those as binding for federal benefits, would be fine by me, and marriage would have nothing to do with it, but his voting record is not libertarian (he also tried to get passed a bill that would basically stop federal oversight of first amendment religion cases, that would allow, for example, states and towns to pass laws making it legal to discriminate against Atheists or other things on religious grounds)</p>
<p>The problem with legally recognized marriage (which is what we are talking about here) is that the government in the first place decided to offer legal benefits to those who are married and worse, decided to recognize as legal marriages performed by churches and clergy. All those who want to deny same sex couples the right to marry because it is a ‘sacrament’ and so forth forget that you don’t need the benefit of clergy, the law doesn’t care, public officials, judges, JP’s, ship’s captains and other can legally marry people, too, and that once the law started doing that, where you got married didn’t matter and thus had nothing to do with being sacred (those who claim it is the word marriage likewise are full of it IMO, for the simple reason that marriage is used when two people are wed by other then clergy, and it doesn’t seem to bother them then).</p>
<p>I agree totally,a better solution would be what is done in much of Europe and in Mexico, you can get married in a church or anywhere you want, but that has no legal weight, if you want the benefits of marriage you have to enter into a civil union agreement (or whatever they call it), that is done by the state and is basically a legally binding contract, and it doesn’t matter if you were married by the local representative of Rome or a Rabbi or whatever, has no bearing. That would take religion totally out of it, but that isn’t likely to happen (it would be pretty easy to convert over, those with legal marriages currently would automatically be granted a civic union contract or whatever,new couples would have to go through the process). One of the reasons this won’t happen is that many of those people who claim it is the term marriage basically don’t want same sex couples to have the rights of marriage, but that sounds better then coming off as a bigot. By allowing church ceremonies to be officially recognized, they can keep that tired argument that 'marriage is a sacrament". </p>
<p>As it exists right now, the term marriage is key. People with civic unions as exists in NJ, for example, find out it isn’t equal to marriage, they find that hospitals won’t grant them medical power of attorney over their spouse because it isn’t ‘marriage’, survivors benefits like pensions and 401k’s can be challenged, because they are regulated by the federal government under ERISA, and of course the feds only recognize marriage, and all the 1500 federal benefits of being married…</p>
<p>Despite what the nay sayers say, marriage has changed all through its history, and somehow civilization survived. Until the 1600’s, 95% of people never got formally married, they paired off and had families, the only people who got married until that time were nobility and people with wealth, for the purpose of inheritance and passing down titles. By the time of the 1600’s, people started getting officially hitched because that is when more and more common people had property that they wished to have given to the next generation, when they had wealth to protect. It is also why we have the concept of common law marriage, because so many people did that. The church itself is lying when it talks about marriage being this sacrament going back through time, they didn’t even have an official sacramental wedding rite until the 9th century, and didn’t require a church wedding blessed by clergy until the 15th century or so…</p>
<p>Plus it has fundamentally changed in the last 150 years or so. Up until that time (and even into relatively modern times) a woman was basically property, and marriage was often a business affair, they were in effect sold to someone (ever wonder about all those 9 year olds married off to older guys, think that was particularly holy?). When women gained rights outside marriage, it changed things, and as women gained more economic power and such it continues to change as society does. The idea that marriage is fixed in time is ludicrous to me, given all the changes it has had. More importantly, I have been married a long time now (23 years and counting), and unlike such fine moral valuists as good ole Newty Gingrich, I actually have been with one woman the whole time, and quite frankly, I can’t see anything about a same sex couple, or even a poly couple, marrying has to do with my marriage or with the ‘foundation of society’. Given what a crappy job people like Gingrich have done with the institution, given the high divorce rates (not without irony, the bible belt states tend to have higher rates of divorce then the states that have same sex marriage) and the fact that something like 60% of married people cheat or have cheated, it seems pathetic to want to stop people who want to get married, claiming it is going to ruin society, when they are doing such a great job themselves ruining it. </p>
<p>In terms of poly marriages, it kind of strikes me as ironic when the religious types bring that up, and quotes ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’…not quite, the text of genesis is that marriage is between a man and one or more women, right there in the bible. If we are going to allow polygamy, then the only basis for rejecting it would be to raise concerns about it on the standards of public good and/or harm. For example, some have raised the objection that poly marriages may be inherently abusive or otherwise harmful, and if that is found to be so, there could be a legal reason to ban them. On the other hand, if no such reason can be found, then the law shouldn’t be enforcing a ban on it simply on moral grounds or tradition. </p>
<p>As far as having sex outside marriage and such, to me that comes down to consensuality. If the partners/spouses are okay with that, that is their business, that is not cheating when it is open and honest. Not saying that is easy, and it is even more difficult when people have polyamorous relationships, but if it is something they work out consensually, that is their business. I will add that marriage would be a lot stronger if people could talk about their sexual needs and desires, instead of being so bound by fears and ancient taboos, and maybe more marriages would survive if the spouses were honest with each other and perhaps in some cases were able to figure out how to get their desires met, outside and inside the marriage, and do it like adults, rather then sneaking around like a kid sneaking ice cream or their father’s playboy. When it comes to sexuality most people have the problem that while surrounded by a world full of sexual images and ideas, many of them still harbor the fears and taboos and they are torn, not knowing what to do, and cheating is the way they get around that.</p>