Subscribe

Rand Paul to government: 'Get out of the marriage business.' Is that possible?

The presidential candidate broke his silence on Friday’s Supreme Court ruling dealing with the legality of same-sex marriages.

  • close
    Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaks during the Road to Majority 2015 convention at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, Thursday, June 18, 2015.
    Andrew Harnik/AP
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption
of

"Government should get out of the marriage business altogether," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Monday in an essay in Time.

The presidential candidate was voicing his opinion on a landmark Supreme Court ruling, which on Friday made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

Sticking to his libertarian roots, he wondered whether, “The time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.” Senator Paul believes that the case against federal involvement is clear, writing, “The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue.”

Recommended: 14 Republicans running in 2016

In his essay, Paul asks “What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?”

The sheer volume of benefits offered to married Americans may make it difficult for the United States to disentangle itself from the "marriage business." In the US, there are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections granted under legal marital status, based on federal law, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Benefits of marriage extend to areas of Social Security, tax law, immigration, employee benefits for federal workers, and health coverage to name a few.

Paul has addressed a few of these complexities in the past. Under the current US tax code, areas of income, estate and gift, and payroll taxes are subject to benefits through marriage. In 2013, he spoke with Fox News, saying, “We wouldn’t have marriage as part of the tax code” if the tax code were to be reformed to the flat-tax system he supports. He also spoke to the complexity of health insurance saying, “I think there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the whole idea of health insurance."

The issue of immigration is closely linked to marriage under current immigration law, which allows spouses of US citizens or permanent residents to enter the country much more easily. On immigration, Paul's campaign website says the senator “[does] not support amnesty, but rather [he] support[s] a legal immigration process.” 

Under current Social Security law, surviving spouses are eligible to receive Social Security payments, among other benefits. Paul's current platform maintains that he is “committed to fixing the Social Security program,” including “preserving the system for seniors” and “implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations.” However, the presidential candidate has not yet explained how removing government from marriage would impact his plans for current and future Social Security benefits.  

Recommended: 14 Republicans running in 2016

In 2009, Paul argued that the decision of the legality of same-sex marriage should be left to the states. Since then, he has largely maintained this stance, particularly when combining this argument with opposition to federalization, characteristic of his libertarian roots.

However, Paul has also stated that he believes in "the traditional religious connotation" to marriage. This past March, Paul spoke with a group of pastors, saying that a "moral crisis" in the United States has "led people to think there is some other kind of marriage."

But Paul also writes, "I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere." 

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK