Rand Paul on gay marriage

Matt Collins

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
In the recent Fox interview Rand said this:


""I'm for traditional marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. We could've fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We don't have to call it 'marriage' which offends myself and a lot of people. I think if we have competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the laws would've solved a lot of these problems."


Seems like the left on Facebook is having a field day with it claiming that Rand is anti-gay rights :rolleyes:
 
Matt Collins said:
In the recent Fox interview Rand said this:


""I'm for traditional marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. We could've fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We don't have to call it 'marriage' which offends myself and a lot of people. I think if we have competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the laws would've solved a lot of these problems."


Seems like the left on Facebook is having a field day with it claiming that Rand is anti-gay rights :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're surprised? Some on the Christian conservative right won't be happy for the opposite reason. Can't please everybody.
 
And of course it's exactly the opposite. He basically said in the interview that the government shouldn't define marriage but should just enforce contracts between consenting adults. So his position would treat everyone equally under the law.
 
*sigh* why is it that Rand always manages to say ONE unnecessary thing in these interviews that takes all of the attention onto itself and away from every single other thing he says?
 
So he wants gays to be married to make the left happy but he doesn't want it to be "called" marriage as that "offends" the right.

Equivalency before the law means he supports gay marriage.

God is not as stupid as the audience Rand is targeting with this middle of the road non-answer.
 
I dont know. Regardless of the law, I do not consider my marriage as a contract.
 
wizardwatson said:
So he wants gays to be married to make the left happy but he doesn't want it to be "called" marriage as that "offends" the right.

Equivalency before the law means he supports gay marriage.

God is not as stupid as the audience Rand is targeting with this middle of the road non-answer.
Click to expand...

How is it a non answer? His position is the same as Ron's, that the government shouldn't define marriage and individuals can define the term "marriage" however they wish to.
 
Brett85 said:
How is it a non answer? His position is the same as Ron's, that the government shouldn't define marriage and individuals can define the term "marriage" however they wish to.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Let's grease the skids for every immorality thing with libertarian crap.

Abortion - cool
prostitution - awesome
bribery - fine by me
blackmail - don't see any problem there
bestiality - not before breakfast!
Lying - indispensable really
adultery - super sweet

Collect taxes to pay for any service not directly related to me - I will resist this evil with all my might until I die and they have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.
 
wizardwatson said:
Awesome. Let's grease the skids for every immorality thing with libertarian crap.

Abortion - cool
prostitution - awesome
bribery - fine by me
blackmail - don't see any problem there
bestiality - not before breakfast!
Lying - indispensable really
adultery - super sweet

Collect taxes to pay for any service not directly related to me - I will resist this evil with all my might until I die and they have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.
Click to expand...

I don't have any idea what you were saying in that post.
 
Crashland said:
*sigh* why is it that Rand always manages to say ONE unnecessary thing in these interviews that takes all of the attention onto itself and away from every single other thing he says?
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything unnecessary. He's running in the GOP primary. Affirming he belief that marriage is between a man an a woman is exactly what he needed to say.

 
wizardwatson said:
So he wants gays to be married to make the left happy but he doesn't want it to be "called" marriage as that "offends" the right.

Equivalency before the law means he supports gay marriage.

God is not as stupid as the audience Rand is targeting with this middle of the road non-answer.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is already legal and it has been since Lawrence v. Texas. Anyone who tells you otherwise is most likely liberal, a liar, uninformed or some combination of all three. The cause of the inequality is all of the stuff the government adds to marriage that frankly is outside the scope of what the government is supposed to be doing in the first place.
 
jmdrake said:
Gay marriage is already legal and it has been since Lawrence v. Texas. Anyone who tells you otherwise is most likely liberal, a liar, uninformed or some combination of all three. The cause of the inequality is all of the stuff the government adds to marriage that frankly is outside the scope of what the government is supposed to be doing in the first place.
Click to expand...

^^^ +rep.
 
Rifleman said:
I dont know. Regardless of the law, I do not consider my marriage as a contract.
Click to expand...

Its a contract in the sense that if you're dead and dying in a hospital bed... your significant other can make decisions for you, its a contract in the sense that if you're dead your inheritance goes to your spouse. You also have legally priviledged correspondence, among many other contractual privledges.

That's all anyone gay or straight deserves from the government; legal recognition of civil spousal rights.

Government shouldn't recognize any marriage or in any way reference the word in law. There certainly shouldn't be government sponsored entitlements benefits that come with marriage. I see no problem with recognition of civil unions for straights and gays alike.
 
Last edited:
presence said:
Its a contract in the sense that if you're dead and dying in a hospital bed... your significant other can make decisions for you, its a contract in the sense that if you're dead your inheritance goes to your spouse. You also have legally priviledged correspondence, among many other contractual privledges.

That's all anyone gay or straight deserves from the government; legal recognition of civil spousal rights.

Government shouldn't recognize any marriage or in any way reference the word in law. I see no problem with recognition of civil unions for straights and gays alike.
Click to expand...

Time and again I have posted on these forums the government privileges that "marriages" convey without the need of contract. It always goes over anti-gay marriage proponents heads. You cannot grant special privilege to a group of people and not another.
 
phill4paul said:
Time and again I have posted on these forums the government privileges that "marriages" convey without the need of contract. It always goes over anti-gay marriage proponents heads. You cannot grant special privilege to a group of people and not another.
Click to expand...

Well this is what I've pointed out that the pro gay marriage people seem to miss. There's nothing stopping someone from setting up a website that's called "Civilunions.com" where gay people can download a form to fill out that covers durable power of attorney for healthcare and goes on to say "If I die first you get all my crap and if you die first I get all your crap." In other words people can create their own civil unions. Here is what happened historically. People were getting married in church. Governments weren't all that relevant. When someone died his/her spouse was literally in possession of everything he/she owned. Possession being 9/10ths of the law there was no need for something formal like a will.

Then we became more "civilized" and people who were not living in the tent/cave/igloo started claiming crap. So we began relying on the custom of marriage. That's all it was. A custom. If someone got sick the local shaman was called over to the cave and if the sick person was incapacitated the shaman asked the other adult living in the tent/cave/igloo "What do you want me to do?" Common sense prevailed. This common sense got codified into common law and could be overridden by contract. Gay relations weren't legal at all so gay marriage didn't even factor in. Sometimes polygamy factored in because in most cultures it was perfectly legal.

Now we're trying to "equalize" everything based on nothing more than current culture. Why the push for gay marriage and not polygamy? Because polls show that most Americans are against polygamy. That's it. And the reason most adults are against polygamy? Good question. I have no idea. Initially it was because of religion. Christianity doesn't explicitly require polygamy any more than it explicitly requires abstaining for alcohol. (In the NT both were suggested as harmful). Now I think the reason is feminism.

And yeah, sure. The state could create "Civilunions.gov" and do the same thing as "Civilunions.com." So that's where we are as a movement? The idea that government should do for people what they can do for themselves? Okay. I really don't care. I hope the SCOTUS will finally rule decisively on this issue one way or the other so that it will quit being a freaking distraction and gay people can start getting taxed at a higher rate (because that's what's going to happen) and start getting hit up for alimony and ultimately realize this isn't the utopia paradise they thought it was going to be. Or they will be like black people and forever love and worship the democratic party without ever taking the time to look back and see if they are really better off now than they were when they started getting all of this "help" from the federal government.

Edit: One more thing. The proper role for government is to make sure that durable powers of attorney for healthcare are enforced. It shouldn't matter if the holder of that instrument is a gay spouse or a parent or a roommate or a sibling or whatever. That's one fix Obama did that I 100% agree with.
 
Last edited:
How does a gay couple consummate their marriage? HB?
 
The man is 100% correct. Gays cannot ever be truly married. Sure, they can keep telling themselves that and become increasingly belligerent when refuted. However, that's not to that they can't contractually consummate their relationship in a state recognized contract similar to marriage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top