Why has Rand not released a statement on the same sex marriage ruling?

[Christian Liberty]

The so called "moral majority" is not responsible for pushing tyrannical social laws any more than is the left and non Christians. The American people across the board, including both Christians and non Christians have been in favor of drug laws. So something like that has absolutely nothing to do with the "religious right alone" forcing their views on everyone else.

See, here's the thing. I'm no fan of the "war on drugs". But as a Christian I see a difference between laws that punish evil, even where the government doesn't have jurisdiction scriputrally, vs punishing the righteous. I'm not really even for the government restricting the sale of crack to teenagers, if the teenagers are willing. THat's the job of families and churches. But such a law is far less egregious than the government trying to shove a gay wedding into the house of God. Not even close.

Oh, and as for homos who are practicing and claiming to be Christian, that's just blasphemy as well as homosexuality. Which is just another capital offense.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Yes! Better late than never.

How is it "late"? When did you publish your 700+ word statement on Friday's ruling?

 

[Brett85]

How is it "late"? When did you publish your 700+ word statement on Friday's ruling?

Yeah, good point. I guess I was basically saying that he could've let people know what he was doing by tweeting something like "will comment on the Supreme Court's marriage decision in an Op-Ed on Sunday." But, it's fine the way he did it. I should've been more patient as I said.

 

[Aratus]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again." http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

From a wise and urbane posting up above by "randomname" a neat & tidy quote i like! Senator Rand Paul has been very consistent!

"Paul hasn’t refrained from talking about gay marriage before, however. In April, in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Paul said he believed “people ought to be treated fairly under the law” but also said he believed in the “traditional religious connotation” of marriage, usually defined by religious conservatives as between a man and a woman.

“And you probably could have both,” Paul added. “You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in. And then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another.”

 

[Aratus]

I probably did get quite carried away in all of this. I should've been more patient. Mods, please delete this thread if you will.

Actually, it would be way more helpful to keep this thread and learn from it as we deal with some of the other threads here

that are focused on official and unofficial censorship, and also the proper place for old battle~flags. If we can apply a similar

logic to the other issue over the past few days that has lead to many a heated discussion and not a consensus, just maybe

by rethinking the basic question in a highly principled & fair manner we can avoid being darn brash, brusque and too blunt.

we must figure out a consensus approach ourselves before we can do an outreach to people outside these forum areas here.

 

[Aratus]

deep down we all needed something to remind us all who we are and why we are here, and why the forums
can be rather pleasant when we tolerate a diversity of viewpoints as we look at the alternatives before us all.

 

[William Tell]

I probably did get quite carried away in all of this. I should've been more patient. Mods, please delete this thread if you will.

I guess we need to find something else to complain about.

Its cool though, we all get frustrated sometimes. We had some discussion, and probably people on RPF will be more patient from now on.