Rand Paul, phumphering and stammering and generally making a mess of himself as he once again states his opposition to marriage equality:
"I think that there's a religious connotation to marriage. I believe in the traditional religious connotation to this. But also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law....I see no reason why if the marriage contract conveys certain things that if you want to marry another woman that you can do that and have a contract but the thing is the religious connotation of marriage that has been going on for thousands of years, I still want to preserve that. You probably could have both. You could have both traditional marriage which I believe in but you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another."
First off there is no religious connotation to marriage in this country; it’s a civil institution. Get that through your thick head, and under your toupee.
And to say that gay men and women — and, by your definition then, straight men and women who choose not to have a religious connotation to their marriage — can simply have a “contract” is Separate But Equal.
We don’t do that here ... or at least we’re not supposed to do that here.