Rand Paul should join Huckabee in supporting Kim Davis

I don't know or care what the discussion in this thread has been up to now. But following this lady's release from prison today on Twitter makes me really happy Rand is not following Huckabee. Huckabee walked her out of prison to a crowd of anti-gay protesters. Not Christians defending their beliefs, anti-gay protesters. Huckabee's rhetoric today makes it sound like gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

That is dangerous, that is uncomfortable to hear. I want no part of it.
 
Chieppa1 said:
I don't know or care what the discussion in this thread has been up to now. But following this lady's release from prison today on Twitter makes me really happy Rand is not following Huckabee. Huckabee walked her out of prison to a crowd of anti-gay protesters. Not Christians defending their beliefs, anti-gay protesters. Huckabee's rhetoric today makes it sound like gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

That is dangerous, that is uncomfortable to hear. I want no part of it.
Click to expand...

Rand could have had his own voice and addressed issues that really are clear and present dangers to all of us
 
dillo said:
Are logs and specks supposed to be represent the same sin?
Click to expand...

That verse has to do with repentance. Before chastising others you need to acknowledge your own faults and work to redeem yourself first. It in no way means you should not judge others for their actions or that you should not try to help them seek forgiveness.
 
Rand was interviewed about Davis earlier today

Not on youtube yet, but you can watch this video of Rand Paul on Fox News from earlier today. Says he needed to stay in DC, didn't want to miss a vote. Mentions the Kentucky(?) "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 2013. (3:52)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/44713328...ease-of-kentucky-county-clerk/?#sp=show-clips

(Rand looks all sunburned, and his hair looks fried, too.)
 
Last edited:
ThePaleoLibertarian said:
The reason Rand didn't support her first is simple; he's afraid to. He wants to be all things to all people across demographics, and in the process he's alienating his support base. It's a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...


He didn't support her first probably because he isn't a huge fan of what she is doing.

I would bet there are just as many people in his base who do not support Kim Davis. I sure don't support her. There is really nothing he could do to lose my support but it does bother me that he showed any sympathy toward this idiot. I do not stand with her in any way shape or form and I would bet that is the overwhelming majority opinion among libertarians. Maybe libertarians aren't Rand's base. I don't know who he is trying to appeal to. But I can't fathom for the life of me any libertarian supporting this woman. She is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Krugminator2 said:
He didn't support her first probably because he isn't a huge fan of what she is doing.

I would bet there are just as many people in his base who do not support Kim Davis. I sure don't support her. There is really nothing he could do to lose my support but it does bother me that he showed any sympathy toward this idiot. I do not stand with her in any way shape or form and I would bet that is the overwhelming majority opinion among libertarians.
Click to expand...

Of course Rand agrees with her.

The people you call libertarians aren't libertarians.
 
Chieppa1 said:
He can do that without diving into this media circus.
Click to expand...

Rand could have led on SOME front (not just issued a statement) without necessarily 'diving into' the Davis circus, to steer it into the proper zone. He could advocated her case on states rights or federalist grounds, or urged Congress to vote to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts to rule on social issues.

Or he could have announced he's pushing for an expansion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to further clarify or protect the exercise of religious liberty of all workers (public or private) from jail or lawsuits. By saying or doing next to nothing on a KY case with national implications, Rand exercised NO leadership, leaving it for the Huckabees to bask in the glory of connecting with people of faith.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
Of course Rand agrees with her.

The people you call libertarians aren't libertarians.
Click to expand...

I don't think he supports her. I think he gave a vague non-answer. Don't lecture me on what a libertarian believes. If you want to be an anarchist and think rule of law is nonsense and that the market or a rights enforcement agency will settle disputes, that's fine. Whatever. That is a different argument. That is your definition of libertarian, not mine.
 
Krugminator2 said:
I don't think he supports her. I think he gave a vague non-answer. Don't lecture me on what a libertarian believes. If you want to be an anarchist and think rule of law is nonsense and that the market or a rights enforcement agency will settle disputes, that's fine. Whatever. That is a different argument. That is your definition of libertarian, not mine.
Click to expand...

Rand's hemming and hawing is probably exactly what Paleo said, avoiding offending pro-gay people. It's another case of his trying to be mainstream. Nothing about what we know about his ideology should give anyone any reason to think that he supports the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision, or the federal courts' tyranny that is going on pursuant to it.

This is a perfect opportunity for him to make a bold stand against the feds like Ron Paul was known for.
 
erowe1 said:
Rand's hemming and hawing is probably exactly what Paleo said, avoiding offending pro-gay people. It's another case of his trying to be mainstream. Nothing about what we know about his ideology should give anyone any reason to think that he supports the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision, or the federal courts' tyranny that is going on pursuant to it.

This is a perfect opportunity for him to make a bold stand against the feds like Ron Paul was known for.
Click to expand...

I think he likely supports the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Justin Amash certainly supports the outcome for the reason that I do. "I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority."
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/913741375331936

I don't know why you would believe Rand thinks otherwise. I would say the whole libertarian legal crowd that Rand always quotes, who want to revisit Lochner, support the outcome of the gay marriage case. I think Rand (to his great credit) is moving away from the reflexive states' rights views Ron pedaled.
 
Krugminator2 said:
I think Rand (to his great credit) is moving away from the reflexive states' rights views Ron pedaled.
Click to expand...

That would make him the polar opposite of his father and the enemy of the very supporters who got him into the Senate. I have seen no evidence of that. Here are some of the things he said prior to the ruling:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

I'm disappointed to see Amash say that. It's shear nonsense to think that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples has any basis in affording people equal rights. A same-sex couple and a married couple are two totally different things. Pretending they're interchangeable is pure propaganda by people who want the government to promote homosexuality. But you misrepresented what he said. He nowhere said that he supported the outcome of the decision, implying that he supported the authority of the federal government over the states in this. I assume he believes it should have been left up to the sovereign states, and nothing in his quote implies otherwise.

Being against the "reflexive states' rights views Ron pedaled" is the same thing as being for one-world-government. You might as well support invading Iraq again to make sure they issue same-sex marriage licenses.
 
Last edited:
Huckabee appearing with Davis as much as he is just furthers his chance of winning a general election.
 
erowe1 said:
I'm disappointed to see Amash say that. It's shear nonsense to think that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples has any basis in affording people equal rights. A same-sex couple and a married couple are two totally different things. Pretending they're interchangeable is pure propaganda by people who want the government to promote homosexuality. But you misrepresented what he said. He nowhere said that he supported the outcome of the decision, implying that he supported the authority of the federal government over the states in this. I assume he believes it should have been left up to the sovereign states, and nothing in his quote implies otherwise.
Click to expand...

Amash is correct in his position. The religious nutjobbery in your post is insane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Matt Collins
Rand Joins Efforts to Retake Legislative Authority from Unaccountable Administrative State
Replies
0
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand and Rep. Kat Cammack Introduce REINS Act to Put Power Back in the People's Hands
Replies
0
Views
2K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand to Force U.S. Vote on War Powers Resolution Concerning U.S. Troops in Syria
Replies
0
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand and Others Reaffirm Congress’ Constitutional Authority to Declare War
Replies
0
Views
595
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top