Rand Paul: On gay marriage, GOP needs to "agree to disagree"

[supermario21]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ds-to-agree-to-disagree/#.Ucs8EmrZuXk.twitter

By Jeff Zeleny
@jeffzeleny
Follow on Twitter
Jun 26, 2013 2:27pm
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”
“As a country we can agree to disagree,” Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. “As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.”
The comments from Paul, a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016, highlight how the party’s field could divide over gay marriage. Many Republicans have been unusually muted in their reactions to the Supreme Court rulings today.
Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called “someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion.” He said Kennedy “tried to strike a balance.”

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

Thanks, signed Ted C.

 

[Warlord]

Thanks, signed Ted C.

Right after we've plastered his Birth certificate all over the internet

 

[Keith and stuff]

Of course. There really isn't any other reasonable option. Bill Clinton's signed law was horrible. It violated the US Constitution. It violated the very meaning of the US. Ron Paul and Rand Paul agree, as to almost all liberty lovers and even most non-liberty folks in the US.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I actually like this approach he's taking rather than falling back instinctively on 'sacred institution.' Though I have to wonder what this means for the GOP in coming years. If they don't shape up and get their message and rhetoric together, they won't be able to reach any of these voters. Let alone enough to make a difference.

 

[Jordan Liberty]

Exactly. Even if you agree with gay marriage or not, you have to realize that it's not the government's job to decide who we are allowed to marry. The problem with most Americans is they want their morals to be law. A co-worker of mine said he disagreed with the decision because it diminished his religious rights as a practicing Jew who believes homosexuality is immoral. I countered that the law isn't banning him from practicing his religion; rather it is allowing others to freely practice their God-given right to do with their lives as they wished. The beauty about liberty is a religious Jewish man who disagrees with gay marriage can live in a country where gay people can get married. He may disagree with it but at least they have the freedom to do as they wish. "Agree to disagree", liberty at its simplest.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

On the subject of gay marriage, apparently Paul said something else about it. Whether out of context or correct, it still became newsworthy.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday appeared to suggest a link between the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and marriage between a human and a non-human, but later walked back that suggestion and said it was a joke.

“It is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people will take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans?” Paul said Wednesday in an interview with Glenn Beck, after Beck suggested some unintended consequences of the rulings, including polygamy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/27/rand-paul-invokes-bestiality-while-discussing-gay-marriage-walks-it-back/

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Of course. There really isn't any other reasonable option. Bill Clinton's signed law was horrible. It violated the US Constitution. It violated the very meaning of the US. Ron Paul and Rand Paul agree, as to almost all liberty lovers and even most non-liberty folks in the US.

Actually, DOMA was constitutional, as Ron Paul past noted several times, but was flawed from a libertarian principle that the government should not be in the business of defining marriage (in either a traditional religious, or modern heathen direction). The law was a stop gap way of preserving the US principle of states rights, by not having a one size fits all notion of legal marriage shoved down everybody's throats. Paul even proposed a better version of what DOMA intended, the Marriage Protection act, to further prevent authoritarian social liberalism from again using the courts to impose their vision on the rest of the country (last time with legalizing abortion, now with normalizing homosexuality).

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course. There really isn't any other reasonable option. Bill Clinton's signed law was horrible. It violated the US Constitution. It violated the very meaning of the US. Ron Paul and Rand Paul agree, as to almost all liberty lovers and even most non-liberty folks in the US.

I agree with the courts here, but I feel like the word "Horrible" should be reserved for things that actually matter like imperialism, murder of the unborn, drug wars, gun control... you know... issues that actually matter...

Actually, DOMA was constitutional, as Ron Paul past noted several times, but was flawed from a libertarian principle that the government should not be in the business of defining marriage (in either a traditional religious, or modern heathen direction). The law was a stop gap way of preserving the US principle of states rights, by not having a one size fits all notion of legal marriage shoved down everybody's throats. Paul even proposed a better version of what DOMA intended, the Marriage Protection act, to further prevent authoritarian social liberalism from again using the courts to impose their vision on the rest of the country (last time with legalizing abortion, now with normalizing homosexuality).

I don't think the entire thing was constitutional...

 

[Brett85]

Of course. There really isn't any other reasonable option. Bill Clinton's signed law was horrible. It violated the US Constitution. It violated the very meaning of the US. Ron Paul and Rand Paul agree, as to almost all liberty lovers and even most non-liberty folks in the US.

Actually, Ron was always in favor of DOMA. It's kind of strange that Ron supported it and Rand opposes it. I guess it's a rare example of an issue where Rand is actually more libertarian than Ron.

 

[William R]

Rand doesn't understand the courts decision.

 

[Brett85]

Rand doesn't understand the courts decision.

Yeah, Kennedy's opinion didn't have anything to do with the 10th amendment and states' rights.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Actually, Ron was always in favor of DOMA. It's kind of strange that Ron supported it and Rand opposes it. I guess it's a rare example of an issue where Rand is actually more libertarian than Ron.

Ron is older

In all seriousness, I'm not sure if supporting DOMA is as much anti-libertarian as it is anti-Federalist... ("Federalism" in this case meaning states rights... I don't mean AoC supporters when I say "anti-federalist" in this case...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Gays are specifically using legislatures and the court system to confer social legitimacy to their unions (or sin). That is the real object, not equality or toleration. Just because it has self servingly been framed as a liberty cause, doesn't make it one--a lot of us don't buy into their marketing campaign. I think the federal government should not be involved in defining marriage, or in defacto defining what everybody in the country must accept as marriage. I am opposed to either the social left or social right employing judicial tyranny to impose the Bible Belt's values on San Francisco, OR San Francisco imposing political correctness on the Bible Belt. We should be prepared to accept the diversity of this country being reflected by different state positions on gay marriage.

Paul on the issue, circa 2004:

"One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states' same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

 

[Keith and stuff]

Gays are specifically using legislatures and the court system to confer social legitimacy to their unions (or sin).

So it is a sin if they have sex outside of marriage and it is a sin if they get married? Some people are really down on gays.

 

[Fredom101]

Give me one good reason why, as a libertarian, you believe that the government should be involved in marriage, gay or straight?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Gays are specifically using legislatures and the court system to confer social legitimacy to their unions (or sin). That is the real object, not equality or toleration. Just because it has self servingly been framed as a liberty cause, doesn't make it one--a lot of us don't buy into their marketing campaign. I think the federal government should not be involved in defining marriage, or in defacto defining what everybody in the country must accept as marriage. I am opposed to either the social left or social right employing judicial tyranny to impose the Bible Belt's values on San Francisco, OR San Francisco imposing political correctness on the Bible Belt. We should be prepared to accept the diversity of this country being reflected by different state positions on gay marriage.

Paul on the issue, circa 2004:

"One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states' same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

It's a sin? Why? Because some men wrote that it was so in a book a few thousand years ago?

 

[Christian Liberty]

So it is a sin if they have sex outside of marriage and it is a sin if they get married? Some people are really down on gays.

Yes.

Homosexual contact is immoral, period.

That doesn't mean it should be illegal, obviously, but it is indeed immoral.

 

[mit26chell]

Who the fuck is anyone to say that it is immoral for me to have contact with my boyfriend? Some people are just ridiculous.


Also, while Rand's position is better than most other republicans, he is still saying it is ideal for gays to be discriminated against, so long as it happens at the state level! The state should just refrain from using the word marriage - everyone's 'marriages' should be called 'unions' for civil purposes and the term 'marriage' should be left for the church to use.

 

[spladle]

Yes.

Homosexual contact is immoral, period.

That doesn't mean it should be illegal, obviously, but it is indeed immoral.

What does it mean for a thing to be immoral?