so does rand support gay marriage? or is it a states issue?

[DXDoug]

i figure he would leave it up to the states like most constitutionalists but if any one knows otherwise lmk

 

[Smart3]

Rand does not differ with Ron on this one.

 

[compromise]

Rand wants to reform the federal tax code to make it fairer to gay couples. However, he is opposed to gay marriage on a state level.

 

[itshappening]

What will happen if the Supreme Traitors overturn state-wide bans?

 

[Brett85]

What will happen if the Supreme Traitors overturn state-wide bans?

I doubt if that will happen. Kennedy said in an interview a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court really shouldn't even be hearing cases that have to do with controversial issues like gay marriage.

 

[Brett85]

Rand does not differ with Ron on this one.

Rand has said that he supports state marriage amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, which makes him different from Ron. I don't think Ron supports that. I think Rand would probably say that the ideal solution would be to have no government involvement in marriage, but as long as the government is going to be involved, marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to prevent it from being re-defined.

 

[Smart3]

Rand has said that he supports state marriage amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, which makes him different from Ron. I don't think Ron supports that. I think Rand would probably say that the ideal solution would be to have no government involvement in marriage, but as long as the government is going to be involved, marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to prevent it from being re-defined.

Ron said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature - he'd have voted to ban marriage. He is adamantly opposed to marriage equality.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature - he'd have voted to ban marriage. He is adamantly opposed to marriage equality.

I'm pretty sure he would phrase it differently, and with purpose. I think he is religious and adament that neither government at state or federal level should define a church's sacraments. However, he has said people should be able to do what they want and call it what they want, and government shouldn't be involved. The religious side is they don't want their own religion and sacraments impacted, and their belief is the sacrament means a man and a women -- in the churches that recognize it that way. But he has said people and the religious organizations should handle it themselves according to agreement not through government.

 

[fr33]

He like his father is opposed to gay marriage. It's an issue I overlook since they are right about many other things.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What will happen if the Supreme Traitors overturn state-wide bans?

I'll personally be annoyed with the judicial activism and otherwise move on with my life. My life in New York State has not been affected in any way I can think of by SSM being legal here. I cannot think of any way anyone I know has been affected in New York State by SSM being legalized (I actually don't know any gay person who has gotten married here either, so I can literally say I've seen zero effect from it.)

Personally I don't really like SSM being "Legalized" (Which really means "Government is trying to water-down the recognition of marriage." Its honestly a lot like passing a law saying the sky is purple. In the long run, it really doesn't MATTER. The sky is still blue. Government doesn't actually change the definition of the word "Sky." Their stupidity in that case would not affect my life. Really, its the same thing here. I don't want them to redefine marriage. It doesn't really MATTER because people can call any relationship or contract they want whatever the heck they want, and rightfully so, but the government shouldn't openly agree with them that they are in fact married. I don't think they should specifically disagree, they should just not take a stance, but if the government is going to define marriage, I would rather them do it correctly. So I'd vote for civil unions, but against marriage, considering the current status quo that government is in fact in the business of defining marriage.

The only thing that really bothers me is the activism though. If they can do something stupid like redefine marriage, they simply get more legitimacy in people's minds. Judicial activism almost always sides with the government over the people.

Rand has said that he supports state marriage amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, which makes him different from Ron. I don't think Ron supports that. I think Rand would probably say that the ideal solution would be to have no government involvement in marriage, but as long as the government is going to be involved, marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to prevent it from being re-defined.

I'd agree with Rand, at the state level, although I'd rather each state decide on its own not to take a stance.

He like his father is opposed to gay marriage. It's an issue I overlook since they are right about many other things.

Who cares?

 

[spladle]

The only thing that really bothers me is the activism though. If they can do something stupid like redefine marriage, they simply get more legitimacy in people's minds. Judicial activism almost always sides with the government over the people.

I'm with you on opposing those who side with government over the people, but judicial activism per se is neither inherently good nor bad. Personally, I would like to see a lot MORE judicial activism in the form of striking down unconstitutional laws. You do realize that Chief Justice Roberts' commitment to judicial restraint is what led him to uphold Obamacare, right?

 

[abacabb]

Talking about homosexual marriages is gay.

 

[cheapseats]

Rand is competing to be top dog in the REPUBLICAN party, right?

Reince Priebus THIS WEEK reiterated that the Republican Party's position is that marriage is between one man and one woman:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/reince-priebus-gay-marriage_n_2915998.html

Boehner said he can't "ever imagine supporting" gay marriage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/john-boehner-gay-marriage_n_2896074.html

I'm guessing Rand can't very well break party ranks on THIS, not when he believes as they do.

I mean, he CAN but...

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm with you on opposing those who side with government over the people, but judicial activism per se is neither inherently good nor bad. Personally, I would like to see a lot MORE judicial activism in the form of striking down unconstitutional laws. You do realize that Chief Justice Roberts' commitment to judicial restraint is what led him to uphold Obamacare, right?

Would overturning an unconstitutional law really be activist though? Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought "Activist" meant legislating from the bench rather than following the constitution as written. I'd argue throwing out Obamacare would have been a strict constructionist ruling, not an activist one.

Admiteedly, a ruling that ruled all drug laws unconstitutional would be activist, even if perhaps desirable. I won't go this route though. If they can give you freedom, they can take it away. I will always support decentralization to the state and local level, even if it seems counter-intuitive at the outset, corrupt men can always take power, we should give each person as little as possible.

 

[Brett85]

Rand's position on this issue is about as far to the left as you can go and still win the GOP primary, which is that the federal government should get out of the issue completely and there should be something similar to civil unions for gays at the state level.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Rand is competing to be top dog in the REPUBLICAN party, right?

Reince Priebus THIS WEEK reiterated that the Republican Party's position is that marriage is between one man and one woman:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/reince-priebus-gay-marriage_n_2915998.html

Boehner said he can't "ever imagine supporting" gay marriage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/john-boehner-gay-marriage_n_2896074.html

I'm guessing Rand can't very well break party ranks on THIS, not when he believes as they do.

I mean, he CAN but...

He could, but it wouldn't win him any favors with some of the GOP. It also wouldn't help him against Clinton, should she run, who we already knew supported it before she made a video saying she supported it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He's also fairly close to correct. There's a lot to criticize Rand on, but here he's pretty good... Not that this issue actually matters.