Rand is Getting Skewered Over "Moral Crisis" Comments

[jmdrake]

Yep. I seem to remember an elder Paul saying, "We get our rights as individuals, not because we belong to certain groups." Gay marriage is not an issue, and should not be an issue for Rand. If gay men and women want to dedicate their lives to eachother and find a pastor, etc, to marry them, who is to stop them??

Rand didn't say it was an issue for him. He said it's an issue for Christians to confront as Christians. That's what a "moral crisis" is.

Ron Paul on DOMA.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul-never-voted-for-the-defense-of-marriage-act-but/
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state.”

Ron Paul on Lawrence v Texas.

http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/ron-paul-gay-marriage-gay-rights.php
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the " right to privacy" to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.

If Rand were to come out and say "The Supreme Court was wrong in overturning sodomy" like his father Ron did who do you think would be happier to hear that? Gay rights advocates or Christian conservatives?

 

[jllundqu]

Rand didn't say it was an issue for him. He said it's an issue for Christians to confront as Christians. That's what a "moral crisis" is.

Ron Paul on DOMA.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul-never-voted-for-the-defense-of-marriage-act-but/
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state.”

Ron Paul on Lawrence v Texas.

http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/ron-paul-gay-marriage-gay-rights.php
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the " right to privacy" to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.

If Rand were to come out and say "The Supreme Court was wrong in overturning sodomy" like his father Ron did who do you think would be happier to hear that? Gay rights advocates or Christian conservatives?

So you think the government (state or federal) has the power to tell two consenting adults they can't marry because of their sexual preference? How's that liberty taste?

 

[jmdrake]

So you think the government (state or federal) has the power to tell two consenting adults they can't marry because of their sexual preference? How's that liberty taste?

LOL. The cognitive dissonance is strong with you. I was giving you RON PAUL'S position on the issue! You had misstated it! Personally I disagree with Ron Paul on Lawrence v. Texas. I don't think states should be telling people they can't have oral or anal sex. Had Lawrence v. Texas been upheld, as Ron Paul said it should have been upheld, gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue. If you want to criticize Rand's position which is "I find gay marriage offensive and the result of a moral crisis but gays should be able to have civil unions" then fine. But to do it on the back of "He dear old dad supports gay marriage" is dishonest. One more thing. Gays can already get married in every state in the union. Ever since Lawrence v. Texas gay marriage has been legal as in gays can't get arrested for it. Gay's don't get the benefits of marriage. Polygamists and adult incest participants can and do get arrested despite being consenting adults.

 

[dannno]

In my opinion, politicians shouldn't be calling for religious revivals because whether true or not, it can give the impression that they want to use government power to bring that about. But Rand didn't say anything that is different from his existing policy position -- I believe when he is referring to "we" in this video he means us as individuals, not lawmakers. Media outlets are saying he flip flopped on this but that is just not true.

Ya I think it's ok to say if you are a politician and are emphasizing that it may be what we need, but the government is not the solution.

 

[mit26chell]

.... and people with eyes or ears.

No, not really. Mainly just religious zealots.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Ron was wrong too. I'll defend people's right to freedom of association, but I'll also tell then that their behavior is abhorrent.

People who are morally opposed to gay marriage are happy to hear him say it. Those of us who have no moral objections disagree. We both want our candidate to share a message that aligns with our worldview.

As I've been saying, this goes beyond policy. Messaging is actually more important than hard policy when it comes to winning elections. I don't understand how anyone can deny that this has a negative impact with certain voting segments.

I also heard CNN do a bit about it tonight and they played back to back clips of him strongly implying he could "evolve" on gay marriage to telling pastors there was a "moral crisis". That appears to the average uneducated voter as a flip flop regardless of casual dismissals and policy dissection.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

So did Rand come out and say that government should intervene when it comes to same-sex marriage? If not, then I don't get the controversy. One doesn't have to approve same-sex marriage to be a good libertarian. However, if a person wants to use the force of government to impose their marriage beliefs (and this goes both ways) onto everybody else, obviously that would be a problem. Just get the government completely out of marriage, seems simple.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron was wrong too. I'll defend people's right to freedom of association, but I'll also tell then that their behavior is abhorrent.

Funny. That seems to be what Rand is doing. He just happens to (apparently) disagree with gay behavior.

People who are morally opposed to gay marriage are happy to hear him say it. Those of us who have no moral objections disagree. We both want our candidate to share a message that aligns with our worldview.

Good luck finding someone who agree with you on everything.

As I've been saying, this goes beyond policy. Messaging is actually more important than hard policy when it comes to winning elections. I don't understand how anyone can deny that this has a negative impact with certain voting segments.

And the voting segments most likely to vote in a republican primary are either ambivalent about the issue or agree that it's a moral crisis.

I also heard CNN do a bit about it tonight and they played back to back clips of him strongly implying he could "evolve" on gay marriage to telling pastors there was a "moral crisis". That appears to the average uneducated voter as a flip flop regardless of casual dismissals and policy dissection.

Rand recently came out and said he would favor some type of civil union. Do you have a suggestion on how he could do that and not totally lose evangelicals without at least letting them know he agrees with them from a moral standpoint? Or would you rather Rand just blow off that voting block in favor of voters you like better?

 

[AuH20]

I haven't noticed anything about this in the media, either. But, since you mention it, the country IS in a moral crisis. It is something Ron talked about too. That our government mirrors what is going on in society.

The government promotes immoral behavior since it creates an environment that they can better operate in. Secondly, immoral people are less likely to stop them.

 

[Brett85]

So did Rand come out and say that government should intervene when it comes to same-sex marriage? If not, then I don't get the controversy. One doesn't have to approve same-sex marriage to be a good libertarian. However, if a person wants to use the force of government to impose their marriage beliefs (and this goes both ways) onto everybody else, obviously that would be a problem. Just get the government completely out of marriage, seems simple.

I think his position is basically that as long as the government is going to be involved in marriage, it should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. But ultimately the government shouldn't be involved in licensing or defining marriage. Seems reasonable to me and certainly not a violation of libertarian principles.