Rand Paul in Iowa - Marriage is a state issue

[tsai3904]

NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA — To Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, the biggest question at stake before the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t who should be able to get married — it’s who should decide who can get married.

After speaking to a group of 65 Republicans in southeastern Iowa on Saturday, Paul took a few questions from the audience and fielded one about his position on gay marriage right off the bat. Johnson County Iowa Rick David asked about a Bloomberg article , which ran with a headline suggesting that Paul was breaking with the Republican Party over gay marriage.

Paul responded that the headline misinterpreted his position and that he, personally, believes “in traditional marriage and always have.”

But Paul said the U.S. Supreme Court decision is more about states’ rights to define marriage than anything else. And that’s what he’s most passionate about.

http://mycn2.com/politics/paul-pled...ct-rejects-states-rights-in-gay-marriage-case


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL0JPKiN7qs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciu570drpK8

 

[PSYOP]

It's a church issue not a damn state issue at all

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's a church issue not a damn state issue at all

I agree. Also, I wonder why Rand would say this about marriage but not say this about drugs. Disappointing indeed...

 

[ninepointfive]

It's a church issue not a damn state issue at all

agreed - but what about the tenth?

 

[wizardwatson]

If the Christians want laws protecting marriage from a Christian angle because Christ's "intention" was that it be between a man and a woman. Then they should pass laws to punish divorce because Christ "explicitly" prohibited that.

See how far that flies.

 

[BAllen]

Good answer!
Some states want gun control, others do not. This could be a good pattern to follow. Those who want more socialism could move to socialist states. Those who want more freedoms could move to those states.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I agree. Also, I wonder why Rand would say this about marriage but not say this about drugs. Disappointing indeed...

He's said that he supports WA and CO's laws so, in essence, he does have a states' rights issue on drugs even if it isn't as direct. Quick to criticize as usual.

 

[Sola_Fide]

He's said that he supports WA and CO's laws so, in essence, he does have a states' rights issue on drugs even if it isn't as direct. Quick to criticize as usual.

Link?

 

[Brett85]

I agree. Also, I wonder why Rand would say this about marriage but not say this about drugs. Disappointing indeed...

That's exactly what I was thinking. Why is marriage a state issue but drug policy isn't? Drug policy is far more important since people are actually getting locked in cages for using drugs.

 

[wizardwatson]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Why is marriage a state issue but drug policy isn't? Drug policy is far more important since people are actually getting locked in cages for using drugs.

He's just pandering. That's how the game is played.

 

[Brett85]

He's just pandering. That's how the game is played.

Then why does he pander on drugs but not on marriage? He's taking an absolutist position that there should be no federal involvement in marriage, but yet he says that he's not in favor of changing any of the federal drug laws except to reduce sentences. This doesn't make any sense since social conservatives care far more about marriage than they care about drugs.

 

[Matthew5]

If the Christians want laws protecting marriage from a Christian angle because Christ's "intention" was that it be between a man and a woman. Then they should pass laws to punish divorce because Christ "explicitly" prohibited that.

See how far that flies.

Actually Oklahoma is working on that:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-would-restrict-divorces/article/3754596/?page=1

Essentially they wanted to reduce the valid reasons down to 5...which the Biblical case for divorce does allow for infidelity as a legitimate reason.

 

[Sola_Fide]

He's just pandering. That's how the game is played.

Yeah, that sucks. Instead of playing into the statist's mindsets, he should be explaining how freedom is something desirable to every evangelical.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Link?

There's been so many interviews on so many policies and I can't remember where it came from. I thought it was common knowledge, can anyone else back me up on this?

 

[tsai3904]

Link?

I posted the link at the bottom of this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...stablishment&p=5021677&viewfull=1#post5021677

This was the exchange:

Reporter: Colorado wants to legalize pot. Washington state wants to legalize pot. They should be allowed to?

Rand: States should be allowed to. I'm not promoting it but states should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions.

 

[V3n]

Rand Paul: Relax Marijuana Penalties, Allow States To Determine Pot Policy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/rand-paul-marijuana_n_2165735.html

"States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions," Paul said. "I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different."

 

[Warlord]

Of course it's common knowledge. He is merely re-stating the 10th amendment to the constitution.

Every one of them swears to uphold this.

The 10th amendment is real ladies and gentlemen. Start using it.

 

[wizardwatson]

Actually Oklahoma is working on that:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-would-restrict-divorces/article/3754596/?page=1

Essentially they wanted to reduce the valid reasons down to 5...which the Biblical case for divorce does allow for infidelity as a legitimate reason.

I read Tolstoy on this subject. His research into the original text led him to the conclusion that the wording was changed. According to him, it originally was written to mean, "He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, causes her to commit adultery." The common interpretation is "He who divorces his wife, except for infidelity, causes her to commit adultery." There is inconsistency in the various gospels with the wording and only Matthew has this "except for cheating" clause explicity. Luke 16:18 doesn't say this. He elaborates on how the passage isn't even grammatically correct the way it's written in the original Greek.

He also points out other things like the passage in matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This "without a cause" pokes a giant hole in Christ's teaching as Tolstoy points out. It means Christians can be "angry" as long as the indignation is "righteous". But the translation is not consistent and his research indicates the clause was added.

It all makes me wonder how much hardcore truth Jesus actually spoke and how much the church has watered it down to allow people some escape routes. I don't believe Christ would promote divorce for any reason, nor do I believe he would advocate that you could be angry as long as you felt you were justified. Everyone who hates someone feels they are justified, just look at the movements opinion of the bankers, statists, and globalists.

You can read all about this in Tolstoy's "What I believe" free online.

 

[BAllen]

I read Tolstoy on this subject. His research into the original text led him to the conclusion that the wording was changed. According to him, it originally was written to mean, "He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, causes her to commit adultery." The common interpretation is "He who divorces his wife, except for infidelity, causes her to commit adultery." There is inconsistency in the various gospels with the wording and only Matthew has this "except for cheating" clause explicity. Luke 16:18 doesn't say this. He elaborates on how the passage isn't even grammatically correct the way it's written in the original Greek.

He also points out other things like the passage in matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This "without a cause" pokes a giant hole in Christ's teaching as Tolstoy points out. It means Christians can be "angry" as long as the indignation is "righteous". But the translation is not consistent and his research indicates the clause was added.

It all makes me wonder how much hardcore truth Jesus actually spoke and how much the church has watered it down to allow people some escape routes. I don't believe Christ would promote divorce for any reason, nor do I believe he would advocate that you could be angry as long as you felt you were justified. Everyone who hates someone feels they are justified, just look at the movements opinion of the bankers, statists, and globalists.

You can read all about this in Tolstoy's "What I believe" free online.

And Paul said he believed it was not adultery if the unbeliever left, even thought he acknowledged that jesus never said that. So, he just made it up. lol

 

[jmdrake]

http://mycn2.com/politics/paul-pled...ct-rejects-states-rights-in-gay-marriage-case


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL0JPKiN7qs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciu570drpK8

Rand Paul is a freaking genius! And this is what I've been trying to say for months now, but it falls on deaf ears as one side or another tries to push some "marriage agenda." The key to the marriage fight becoming a winning issue for us in the GOP is to point out to social conservatives, as Rand so eloquently did, that they are not going to win this issue long term by continuing to try to push it at the federal level. Rand is right. The right is loosing the culture war. There are no ands, ifs or buts about it. The best thing for the right to do is to work with libertarians to decouple the government, especially the federal government, from marriage. It can be done. It will be a lot of work, but it can be done. However, if as a movement we take the "We must equalize marriage first and then get the government out"....well we will shoot ourselves in the foot in two ways.

1) Conservatives, from that point on, will see us as the enemy and not want to work with us on marriage issues at all.

2) Liberals, having gotten what they wanted on gay rights, will no longer have any incentive to work with us on anything related to marriage because they want more government involvement in everything.

I'm glad to see Rand gets this. I hope others will as well.