Reading this I wonder if maybe I can actually learn to like this Rand Paul fellow. I've been saying for years that if you're a supporter of gay marriage then logically you should also paradoxically support gov't getting out of the marriage business altogether. For gov't, involvement in marriage was always about the making of babies and the raising of healthy [one fondly hoped] families thereof - and specifically as concerns the means by which heterosexuals go about getting in the family way since existentially that travail is a complex and fragile journey fraught with many dangers and complications - in accepting the idea of gay marriage one basically is conceding or endorsing the fact that marriage is no longer about children, it's now about love - and indeed that is the language gay activists use when they declaim that the gov't has no right to tell them who they can choose to love - and I agree - if you're an advocate of gay marriage then logically you should also be an advocate of gov't getting out of the marriage business altogether since, if marriage is now to be simply about love, what need is there for the gov't to be sticking its nose into that? Laws should stay on the books of course concerning the welfare of children.
Ironically, my guess would be that if such a thing were to happen 'interest' in gay marriage would drop precipitously since the construct would be sapped of all political utility.
