Ron Paul On Gay Marriageby Doug Mataconis
Well, if you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.
But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary.
We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It’s very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states — I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.
At the beginning, Paul gets it completely right. The government — federal, state, and local — should be out of the marriage business, compeltely and totally. I have argued much the same thing in other posts here at The Liberty Papers here and here:
Here’s my proposal. Get rid of civil marriage licenses entirely. Let people decide for themselves what they believe about marriage and let them, if they wish solemnize that union in a church of their choice. We are hundreds of years past the day where the state was involved in religious affairs, it doesn’t need to be involved in this matter either.
That’s what Paul seems to say at the beginning, but then he turns it into solely a Federalism issue and argues that the states should have the right to regulate marriage. While he is correct that the Federal Government should not have a role in defining marriage, conceding that the states should have such a role concedes far too much ground to the anti-gay marriage theocrats.