While we’re speculating whether Tom Davis will change his mind and run against Lindsey Graham after all, it looks like Tom himself is sort of regretting that he didn’t run for the 1st Congressional District. Here’s his reaction, on Facebook, to the campaign’s descent into cultural wedge issues:
Two days ago in SC 1st district GOP primary, it was creationism, now it’s gay marriage. Ridiculous. Obsession with using the coercive power of the federal government in such “social conservative” matters is inconsistent with the principle of limited and constitutional government. I wish one of the candidates had answered the gay-marriage question like this: “I oppose federal government efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, and my personal belief is that marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. But I also oppose federal government efforts to define marriage as only the union between a single man and a single woman. The federal government has only those powers delegated to it in the constitution and defining what constitutes a marriage is not one of them.”
Related Posts
So he’s saying “Leave it up to the states”? That’s a copout… especially when the federal government has programs (Social Security, Income Taxes, etc.) that have specific benefits for
married couples. As it stands now, a legally married gay couple cannot take advantage of those benefits. That’s wrong.
Why?
Why is it wrong? Since gay marriage is a new thing in human history, the burden is on you to demonstrate why it is wrong, not just to assert that it is and have everyone agree.
Marriage, I believe, falls somewhere between the strict scrutiny standard for fundamental rights, like racial nondiscrimination, and rational basis, for regular subjects of legislation. What would even a rational basis be for discriminating against same sex couples?
Rand Paul today on gay marriage:
” Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “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.”