Rand Paul Thinks Dog Marriage is Next

Rand PaulAs you all know, I have major problems with real libertarians—to a large extent because most of them have a good understanding of the problems of governing and I don’t see why they don’t recognize their very clear blind spots. But people who claim to be libertarians who don’t understand the philosophy and just throw the word around because it sounds cooler than “conservative” are another matter. I hate them.

The most prominent pretend libertarian is Rand Paul. This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with him from time to time. Hell, I agree with Rick Santorum now and then. One nice thing about real libertarians is that you can usually predict where they stand on any given issue. But not so with Paul. He is anti-abortion, for example. Now I understand that some libertarians are anti-abortion. But I don’t get it. A 16-cell zygote has equal human rights to the mother? Really?!

But there are many more clear examples. He isn’t, for example, in favor of drug legalization—just cannabis. Now, I’m all for legalizing cannabis. But at this point, the argument isn’t the libertarian one that people should be allowed to make their own choices. It is the (true) conservative argument that cannabis is no more dangerous than other legal drugs. At least Paul’s father, Ron Paul, acts like a true libertarian in this regard.

And now, Rand Paul is making the media rounds to complain about the Supreme Court’s overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. He was on Glenn Beck’s show (another pretend libertarian) warning that same sex marriage would lead to polygamy. I actually agree with him that this ought to lead to polygamy. I’m very much a libertarian on this issue: people should be able to enter whatever contracts they want with each other. But Paul brought this up as a note of caution: polygamy is bad.[1] This is clearly not a man who believes that people’s lives are their own.

Of course, Paul didn’t stop there. He said that soon marriage equality proponents may ask, “Does it have to be humans?” Well, as a matter of fact Dr. Paul, yes, it does have to be humans. This is a settled issue. Humans can’t marry dogs for the same reason that they can’t marry children. Marriage is a contract. It requires that all parties being legally able to consent. This is Rick Santorum level “man on dog” thinking. As low as I’ve thought of Rand Paul, he’s actually reached a new quantum level.

[1] I am concerned about certain aspects of polygamy—mostly pushing young girls into marriage before they are old enough to make an informed choice. I could imagine it becoming a form of slavery. But I’m sure these issues could be dealt with.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

0 thoughts on “Rand Paul Thinks Dog Marriage is Next

  1. Polygamy IS misogynistic slavery: women are seen as chattel, used as tools. The same husbandry practices employed in raising livestock are applied to polygamous arrangements.

    I’d write more if I had the energy or felt more than a vague discomfort from the appalling treatment that millions of women the world over endure. Let’s just say that there are two fundamentally evil influences that rule this world: greed and God.

  2. @Andrea – Yes, but polygamy doesn’t [i]have[/i] to be that way. For one thing, I have read about arrangements like two women and two men. There is nothing wrong with the concept, although in practice, I suspect it means young women being married to rich old men.

  3. Rand Paul is NOT in favor of legalizing cannabis. He is in favor of decriminalization of possession, and shorter sentences for distribution. This is a far cry from the libertarian position of legalization. Even Reason magazine calls him a pretend libertarian (though not in those words).

  4. @Andy – Oops! Thanks for setting me straight. So it is even worse than I thought.

    For anyone interested in these subjects, you should check out Andy’s excellent blog:

    <a href="http://opiophilia.blogspot.com/">Opiophilia Blog</a>

    He really knows what he’s talking about and keeps up on this stuff in ways I just can’t anymore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *