Wild74 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Social issues were no less than a giant thorn that crushed the soul of the GOP in the 2012 elections. The GOP lost latinos, blacks, Asians, and the youth vote while laying a red carpet out for Obama. But there could be compromise on the horizon concerning one of the issues, and this one from Rand Paul concerning gay marriage may have the most appeal to the most people: Paul says foreign policy is an instrumental way to expand the GOP, but it’s not the only way. Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. 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.” This is one of the best ideas I’ve seen on the gay marriage issues in …ever. It keeps the traditional definition of marriage intact, but changes the tax codes to remove marital references for IRS purposes. It seems confusing that marriage is even a qualification for certain tax exemptions given the whole ‘separation of church and state’ thing. Plus, you can just about tack on hundreds of thousands of young voters to the GOP if this was to happen, because many don’t vote for the Republican party at all for this reason even though they wholeheartedly believe in fiscal responsibility…ya know, that thing the Democratic party has completely and totally forgotten about. But with that being said, how do you guys feel about Paul’s idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Well, I guess that would do it, but if they change it in the tax code, does that also include folks who just "live together", etc., etc.? Calls for a lot of tweaking. I'm a little concerned about the having to change something just to satisfy SOME folks to get their votes. The issues are bigger, obviously. I think in the end, when it comes to entitlements, that'll be how folks cast their vote. I still believe it should be a state's right. Won't help on the federal level, but it would on the state level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGirl Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Marriage should not be a government issue period. Ron Paul has always said that marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the church and the governments at all levels should stay out of marriage. His son is reasonable as well. I think it is a very good idea. I also like the idea of libertarianizing the GOP. The neos will not go for a libertarian foreign policy - they like war.....and they will not go for Paul's idea about marriage and the tax code because they like to nose around in folk's bedrooms as demomonstrated by the previous poster's comments about the "live togethers". Neocons do not really want a simplified tax code either - so much for TEA party's original intent. Obviously as stated above, they are against any tweaking of the tax code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 Taxes are a source of power for government that is the reason there is no flat tax or consumption tax. Who wants to give up the power to give certain people or certain companies goodies in the tax code. If you give those goodies , then when you retire you might can set on the board of directors or better yet become a high paid lobbyist for certain companies. On the marriage issue, marraige should be between a man and woman but times are changing, won't change the way I believe but I am for states setting their own standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiftysix Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I like this idea.. I'm against the idea of gay marriage because it is obviously forbidden in the Bible, however, I don't think that one's rights should be hindered based on sexual preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Marriage should not be a government issue period. Ron Paul has always said that marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the church and the governments at all levels should stay out of marriage. His son is reasonable as well. I think it is a very good idea. I also like the idea of libertarianizing the GOP. The neos will not go for a libertarian foreign policy - they like war.....and they will not go for Paul's idea about marriage and the tax code because they like to nose around in folk's bedrooms as demomonstrated by the previous poster's comments about the "live togethers". Neocons do not really want a simplified tax code either - so much for TEA party's original intent. Obviously as stated above, they are against any tweaking of the tax code. Boy, you sure sound like a liberal, just making up things as you go. Ahhhhh....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGirl Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Taxes are a source of power for government that is the reason there is no flat tax or consumption tax. Who wants to give up the power to give certain people or certain companies goodies in the tax code. If you give those goodies , then when you retire you might can set on the board of directors or better yet become a high paid lobbyist for certain companies. On the marriage issue, marraige should be between a man and woman but times are changing, won't change the way I believe but I am for states setting their own standards. Married people have been given goodies with the tax code, I always found it odd that a person is taxed at a different rate, penalized, in other words, for not being married, even the withholding amounts are different, how is that equal? Why should a non-married person be "fined" for not getting married? I don't even mean only gay people, single straight people are discriminated againstin the tax code also. Seems like Rand's idea not only equalizes everyone, but will cut out some of the quid pro quo election promises by politicians, or at least slow some of it down, still need cut out the subsidies and treat everyone equal in the eyes of the tax law...especially since Corporations are now people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtlobos Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Here's my thoughts, this might have been stated, I just skimmed through it... Okay, our "great" government has preached about having a separation of church and state. Politicians will say gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Well, if you have a separation of church and state, the government should have no say in the matter. If a clergyman wants to marry a same sex couple that's on them. Here's another point on it ruining the sanctity of holy matrimony. You know what else ruins marriage? Divorce. The government hands those out left and right every day. Now, I don't agree with gay marriage, but if our government wants nothing to do with religion, then they should keep it that way. Either have religion in government, or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted March 22, 2013 Author Share Posted March 22, 2013 Here's my thoughts, this might have been stated, I just skimmed through it... Okay, our "great" government has preached about having a separation of church and state. Politicians will say gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Well, if you have a separation of church and state, the government should have no say in the matter. If a clergyman wants to marry a same sex couple that's on them. Here's another point on it ruining the sanctity of holy matrimony. You know what else ruins marriage? Divorce. The government hands those out left and right every day. Now, I don't agree with gay marriage, but if our government wants nothing to do with religion, then they should keep it that way. Either have religion in government, or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pretty good thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Boy, you sure sound like a liberal, just making up things as you go. Ahhhhh....... At least he didn't vote for a liberal for president.... :P this is an issue which was left to the STATES by the TENTH AMENDMENT, and that is where it should be decided....the federal government has no Constitutional say so in the matter on either side of the issue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 this is an issue which was left to the STATES by the TENTH AMENDMENT, and that is where it should be decided....the federal government has no Constitutional say so in the matter on either side of the issue..... And I totally agree......it should be left to the states and the citizens within the states to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGirl Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 At least she didn't vote for a liberal for president.... :P this is an issue which was left to the STATES by the TENTH AMENDMENT, and that is where it should be decided....the federal government has no Constitutional say so in the matter on either side of the issue..... I corrected the only mistake I could find in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I corrected the only mistake I could find in your statement. I stand corrected.... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Okay, I get it now. Read an article this morning http://www.thestreet.com/story/11881328/1/scotus-on-prop-8-and-doma-the-financial-implications.html?cm_ven=msearthlinkcf explains better to apply to Rand's statement. However, the change in the IRS and SS should still be according to those states who have voted for gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now