

Without realizing it, in an interview with the National Review, Rand Paul came out not just against marriage equality, but marriage entirely:

I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. 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.

The problem with this “old-fashioned traditionalist” sentiment is that marriage is, historically, a civil function, and mostly exists in the tax code. Here are many of the pieces that, if Senator Paul had his way, we would be getting rid of, per the U.S. Tax Code:

Inheritance

This may seem like a no-brainer, but we are talking Rand Paul here. The largest portion of marriage in the tax code has to do with inheritance. A spouse can inherit their counterpart’s estate without a severe tax penalty. And let’s not forget that the primary purpose of marriage when originally created (as documented in the Code of Hammurabi, roughly 1780 B.C.) was to deal with inheritance. It dedicated several paragraphs to inheritance issues, for both a spouse and children, and gave the spouse special dispensation in dealing with their dead husband or wife’s estate.

Retirement Savings





A married couple can save twice as much for retirement as a single person; again, a no-brainer. However, this is true regardless of working status; a one-job household would, therefore, be able to save twice as much while married as otherwise. Rand Paul is arguing here for expanding the welfare state, to make up for cutting the amount able to be saved for retirement in half. He is also arguing to socialize the healthcare system, as healthcare savings plans work through the same mechanism. Eliminating marriage from the tax code eliminates this advantage.

Home Sale Tax Advantage

Married couples have twice the exemptions of a single person, enabling a massive deduction in their taxable income from the sale of a home. Rand Paul here is arguing to penalize people who purchase or sell their homes, all in the name of forcing-his-religious-views-on-you.

Divorce

This may surprise people, but the tax code is designed to make divorce, the separation of assets, simpler. Without the tax code for marriage, disengagement from a long-term relationship becomes a lengthy, complex, and expensive affair, with considerable tax penalties applied. Imagine trying to split a joint retirement account for a moment. To split it, without the marriage tax code, would require liquidating it and splitting the revenue. But, tax wise, it would be considered a withdrawal, with sizable tax penalties of up to 15% on top of the general income tax. And this is only a singular example of the numerous tax advantages tied to just divorce. Everything from home ownership, to vehicles, to stock and bonds, are all simplified, thanks to marriage in the tax code.

What Senator Paul is doing here is making a nonsensical argument for the ill-educated. Eliminating marriage in the tax code would not be freedom, it would directly hurt almost everyone in the United States. Rand Paul is revealing himself to be unqualified for the office he holds.

But that’s nothing new.

What Rand Paul ultimately fails to grasp is that marriage is mostly defined by the tax code. To eliminate it from the tax code would, in turn, effectively eliminate it, because it would eliminate most of what marriage brings about in the first place. Without the tax code, inheritance, owning a home, even raising children would be a major problem for couples. Rand Paul is spouting inane rhetoric in an attempt to rally people to his cause, which is the destruction of our society, the undoing of the social contract, and the elimination of the United States of America. That he would even suggest eliminating marriage tells us, ultimately, what he believes: that if he does not get special rights, he wants to eliminate all rights for everyone.

We call that “taking my ball and going home” syndrome. That a sitting U.S. Senator would directly harm marriage in this country rather than allow marriage equality, tells us this is coming down to a fight between those who demand special, exclusive rights vs. equal treatment under the law. Senator Paul has clearly comes down against the side of the U.S. Constitution, and the intent of this great nation. And it is time to tell Rand Paul precisely what we think of his plan to eliminate marriage for all people in the United States.

Nathaniel Downes is the son of a former state representative of New Hampshire, now living in Seattle Washington.

Feel free to follow Nathaniel Downes on Facebook.