I'm not sure how that is related. Christian business owners would still have the same issue about serving gay couples regardless of whether or not the government officially recognizes their marriage.
Why has Rand not released a statement on the same sex marriage ruling?
- Thread starter Brett85
- Start date
I'm not sure how that is related. Christian business owners would still have the same issue about serving gay couples regardless of whether or not the government officially recognizes their marriage.
TRANSLATION: OMG OMG THE WORLD IS FALLING APART!! Sorry to burst your bubble on this but the world already fell apart last week because of the whole South Carolina flag thing. It can't fall apart again!! Oh wait....
We should be allowed to follow our religious convictions on anything as long as we don't harm anyone else.
Gays didn't start suing Christian business owners until the government began recognizing same sex marriages. It's directly related. Government endorsed same sex marriage is leading a massive assault on religious liberty in America. It's a major issue. I don't want to be in some FEMA camp 10 years from now being forced to be "reeducated" and think the way that everyone else thinks, so I'm going to fight back against this assault on religious liberty.
alucard13mm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,454
Basically shame and force convert people and businesses to follow the same views.
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
In all seriousness, I cannot tell if that is satire.
DevilsAdvocate
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,608
Why do you want Rand to make divisive statements on social issues?
The whole point of the Tea Party is to put minor things like that aside, and instead come together to focus on economic concerns.
The whole point of the Tea Party is to put minor things like that aside, and instead come together to focus on economic concerns.
Wilf
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 723
cases
Has he ever done that? All I've ever heard him say is that it should be left up to the states.
randomname
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,712
Rand Paul silent on gay marriage ruling
By Daniel Strauss
6/27/15 5:05 PM EDT
Ted Cruz called for impeachment. Bobby Jindal said he’d “just get rid of the court” entirely. Scott Walker floated a Constitutional amendment. Mike Huckabee hinted at civil disobedience.
But well over 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, one Republican 2016 candidate has thus far remained silent: Rand Paul.
While other GOP hopefuls bashed the high court’s decision to one degree or another, the Kentucky senator didn’t say anything or release a statement or respond to requests for comment from POLITICO.
Paul’s silence stands in contrast to his voluble response on Thursday, when the justices upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act. He released a statement saying the decision “turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.” He was still going on Friday afternoon, tweeting, “while some in my party may want to wave the white flag, I am more determined than ever to fight for total repeal of Obamacare.” No tweets, however, on gay marriage.
By Saturday, Paul had also tweeted about his poll numbers and the “hackathon for liberty and privacy” sponsored by his campaign and made numerous requests for donation.
Again, though, there was no mention of gay marriage of the high court’s landmark ruling earlier that day — on any of the candidate’s many social media accounts.
Paul’s habit of initial silence on the hot political topic of the day has been noted by the national press recently, especially his delayed response to Mitt Romney’s call for the Confederate flag to be taken down from Capitol grounds in South Carolina. Paul finally weighed in on Tuesday, days after Romney’s Saturday tweet, and well after his rivals had already made statements. The Kentucky senator’s silence on the gay marriage ruling is another example of that pattern.
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.”
INDEPENDENCE , IA - MAY 19: Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits Laree's The Shoppe of Favorites store on May 19, 2015 in Independence, Iowa. Earlier in the day Clinton hosted a small business forum with members of the business and lending communities in Cedar Falls, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Also on POLITICO
Clinton slams GOP as 'party of the past'
GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
In a 2013 interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, Paul voiced reservations about “federalizing” same-sex marriage.
“I’m not sure exactly how I’d come down on the federalization part,” Paul said in the January 2013 interview. “My fear is that in federalizing it, we’re going to lose the battle for the whole country. In keeping it state by state, which is the way marriage has always been adjudicated, we’ll have states that continue to have traditional marriage. I think we’re losing in large areas of the country now. If the urban areas are able to dictate, for the rest of the country, what our definition of marriage is, I’m really concerned about that.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...arriage-supreme-court-ruling-2016-119500.html
By Daniel Strauss
6/27/15 5:05 PM EDT
Ted Cruz called for impeachment. Bobby Jindal said he’d “just get rid of the court” entirely. Scott Walker floated a Constitutional amendment. Mike Huckabee hinted at civil disobedience.
But well over 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, one Republican 2016 candidate has thus far remained silent: Rand Paul.
While other GOP hopefuls bashed the high court’s decision to one degree or another, the Kentucky senator didn’t say anything or release a statement or respond to requests for comment from POLITICO.
Paul’s silence stands in contrast to his voluble response on Thursday, when the justices upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act. He released a statement saying the decision “turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.” He was still going on Friday afternoon, tweeting, “while some in my party may want to wave the white flag, I am more determined than ever to fight for total repeal of Obamacare.” No tweets, however, on gay marriage.
By Saturday, Paul had also tweeted about his poll numbers and the “hackathon for liberty and privacy” sponsored by his campaign and made numerous requests for donation.
Again, though, there was no mention of gay marriage of the high court’s landmark ruling earlier that day — on any of the candidate’s many social media accounts.
Paul’s habit of initial silence on the hot political topic of the day has been noted by the national press recently, especially his delayed response to Mitt Romney’s call for the Confederate flag to be taken down from Capitol grounds in South Carolina. Paul finally weighed in on Tuesday, days after Romney’s Saturday tweet, and well after his rivals had already made statements. The Kentucky senator’s silence on the gay marriage ruling is another example of that pattern.
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.”
INDEPENDENCE , IA - MAY 19: Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits Laree's The Shoppe of Favorites store on May 19, 2015 in Independence, Iowa. Earlier in the day Clinton hosted a small business forum with members of the business and lending communities in Cedar Falls, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Also on POLITICO
Clinton slams GOP as 'party of the past'
GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
In a 2013 interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, Paul voiced reservations about “federalizing” same-sex marriage.
“I’m not sure exactly how I’d come down on the federalization part,” Paul said in the January 2013 interview. “My fear is that in federalizing it, we’re going to lose the battle for the whole country. In keeping it state by state, which is the way marriage has always been adjudicated, we’ll have states that continue to have traditional marriage. I think we’re losing in large areas of the country now. If the urban areas are able to dictate, for the rest of the country, what our definition of marriage is, I’m really concerned about that.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...arriage-supreme-court-ruling-2016-119500.html
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,451
Well, there you go, Brett. He gave a good liberty answer days ago. And one site reported on it.
Which is how you can tell that he gave a really good, sensible, let's not let them divide us against each other answer.
Can we have faith now that if we don't hear how he weighed in on something, it isn't because he didn't? It's just because he gave another great answer.
All that and he deflected the conversation over to a more pressing nuts-and-bolts problem--Obamacare--as well.
Last edited:
RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,689
There isn't much for him to say as a Presidential candidate except that the opinion was incoherent nonsense and he'll appoint better judges.
The real action will be with the governors who are running. How will they handle being told to rewrite their states' family laws?
The real action will be with the governors who are running. How will they handle being told to rewrite their states' family laws?
thoughtomator
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,267
I'm totally fine with Rand considering the issue to be too trivial to comment on.
FreedomProsperityPeace
Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,839
I agree with these guys. Try to avoid these heated, polarized issues and stick to selling your plans for improving the economy and the country, especially our debt and deficit situation. It makes Rand seem presidential, "above the fray", and doesn't leave a bad taste in voters' mouths when they consider him later on.
I think he's doing the right thing by not saying things until he has to...
I'm hoping he avoids saying something that would be sorta like Rick Santorum's stance on the same issue.
He can quote his 2013 statement so as to indicate his previous position prior to the Supreme Court decision
and perhaps bring things up to date. Unless he is specifically asked this, by not being vocal, he can let the
voters think things over themselves. We all are still taking in his stance on the Confederate flag, postings
have been heated. I'm in basic agreement with Jack Hunter and Rand Paul, but I think that censorship often
is stupidly excessive. Lets don't fly the Confederate flag on public buildings. Lets allow the graves of the fallen
to have the flags they fought under when alive thusly placed on them. Or perhaps don't use the battle flag but
do have the three versions of the flag of the Confederacy as an option, due to the design changes. Nazi hate
groups have made the battle flag more inflammatory, as the generations who believed in Segregation are passing
away. We've gone as French as the French Revolutionaries of 1792 with our "cookie cutter" political correctness.
My stance on same sex marriage between two consenting adults is basically Libertarian, I am not against it at
all, but I wish each state was finding their own path or way by asking each group of voters if this is to be done.
It seems to me that once the furor over the killings and the Confederate battle flag ceases, RAND will be hit with
this as a debate question. Many of his ideas are very Libertarian, I expect Rick Santorum to go after him on this.
I'm hoping he avoids saying something that would be sorta like Rick Santorum's stance on the same issue.
He can quote his 2013 statement so as to indicate his previous position prior to the Supreme Court decision
and perhaps bring things up to date. Unless he is specifically asked this, by not being vocal, he can let the
voters think things over themselves. We all are still taking in his stance on the Confederate flag, postings
have been heated. I'm in basic agreement with Jack Hunter and Rand Paul, but I think that censorship often
is stupidly excessive. Lets don't fly the Confederate flag on public buildings. Lets allow the graves of the fallen
to have the flags they fought under when alive thusly placed on them. Or perhaps don't use the battle flag but
do have the three versions of the flag of the Confederacy as an option, due to the design changes. Nazi hate
groups have made the battle flag more inflammatory, as the generations who believed in Segregation are passing
away. We've gone as French as the French Revolutionaries of 1792 with our "cookie cutter" political correctness.
My stance on same sex marriage between two consenting adults is basically Libertarian, I am not against it at
all, but I wish each state was finding their own path or way by asking each group of voters if this is to be done.
It seems to me that once the furor over the killings and the Confederate battle flag ceases, RAND will be hit with
this as a debate question. Many of his ideas are very Libertarian, I expect Rick Santorum to go after him on this.
RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,689
the thing with that is that the offical flags of the CSA are all more pro-slavery. It was the CSA government that was so explicitly pro-slavery. The battle flag was the flag of the soldiers. Flying the battle flag actually is the one option to honor the soldiers and not slavery. I wouldn't be surprised if SCarolina winds up flying one of those instead, though. People are stupid and crazy.
You can't put aside assaults on religious liberty. If libertarians don't care about religious liberty than they believe in tyranny and are worse than even most of the Republican candidates running for President.
Again, assaults on religious liberty and the 1st Amendment and 10th Amendment are in no way "trivial." If you think that you're no friend of liberty.
I agree that the battle flag and the three official versions of the Confederate flag are very "Pro-Slavery" and not for its eventual
eradication in any hurry. Winston Churchill looked at the slavery question and tried to figure out what the South would have done
had Pickett's charge turned the tide at Gettysburg! Maybe slavery would have ended by slow degrees normally. Instead we had a war.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/win...tysburg-he-would-have-freed-the-slaves.98318/ --- http://www.historynet.com/churchill-imagines-how-the-south-won-the-civil-war.htm What is obvious is that
sharecropping did not end until large acreage and tracts of land was plowed up by the newer tractors from 1940 onwards. All that
Congressional Reconstruction did is slightly modify the economic system the South had in place after the invention of the cotton gin.
We had institutions in the Pre-War South not unlike Feudalism proper in Merrie Auld England. The irony is, social change happens
as we recover from the Great Depression. FDR is before JFK & LBJ, the New Deal is before the Great Society and also our ability to
support large urban populations from the efforts of only 5% to 10% of our people. We have ceased to be a nation of yeoman farmers.
Last edited:
P3ter_Griffin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,979
The 10th amendment, or 'states rights', is pretty rubish. 'Let the states decide your fate.' That doesn't seem very pro-liberty. And the inability to refuse customers based on some characteristic (including sexuality) is not so because of this decision. The states now can't discriminate marriage licenses based on sexuality. Good decision IMO.
Similar threads
