Again, yes they can. If a man is gay and loves five other men, that man doesn't have the right to have a government marriage with those five men. So in no way does this ruling have anything to do with "equality" of any kind. There are still all kinds of limits and restrictions on government marriage. And again, all this decision will do is lead to massive assaults on the religious liberty of the American people.
Why has Rand not released a statement on the same sex marriage ruling?
- Thread starter Brett85
- Start date
Again, yes they can. If a man is gay and loves five other men, that man doesn't have the right to have a government marriage with those five men. So in no way does this ruling have anything to do with "equality" of any kind. There are still all kinds of limits and restrictions on government marriage. And again, all this decision will do is lead to massive assaults on the religious liberty of the American people.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Republican, Democrat, libertarian. More and more I'm starting to think its all godless rot.
Republican, Democrat, libertarian. More and more I'm starting to think its all godless rot.
Me too. I'm about to the point now where I'm not sure if I even want to be involved in politics. There just aren't really any politicians that I can even support at the moment it seems.
If we are being more flexible about the concept of state approved of marriages, we all might humour the idea
of being more tolerant of those dissident groups of Mormons who do assume men ought to have more than one
wife at a time. Mitt Romney's private life suggests that he himself never wanted to do what some of the long
dead members of his faith had done. His stances on many issues of the day wasn't really too different from
Barack Obama's, although he usually was more cautious about social change than our sitting 'lame duck' POTUS.
of being more tolerant of those dissident groups of Mormons who do assume men ought to have more than one
wife at a time. Mitt Romney's private life suggests that he himself never wanted to do what some of the long
dead members of his faith had done. His stances on many issues of the day wasn't really too different from
Barack Obama's, although he usually was more cautious about social change than our sitting 'lame duck' POTUS.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I don't think I can ethically support Amash with what he said about gay marriage. He's a good guy in general, and if I were a pragmatist he'd be the first guy I would support. But I'm not a pragmatist and I believe God is going to judge our nation for things like this (per Psalm 2). Moral issues like this matter a lot more to me now than they would have a year ago.
I'm still supporting Rand Paul, more out of desperation than anything else. I'm not particularly thrilled about it. And mentally I'm about midway between whether its even legitimate to swear an oath to the constitution or not, since it is a pluralistic document that doesn't recognize Christ at all. Its a humanistic law foundation.
This is the kind of stuff I didn't even think twice about two years ago. I still value liberty highly, but I have a very different mindset for what that looks like and how to get there. I don't think freedom will come without religious revival, national collapse, or (more likely) both. I think that'll happen eventually to be honest. Secularism is presuppositionally unsustainable, and while postmodernism can do the equivalent of saying "la la can't hear you" for awhile, eventually secularism will collapse when the sheer weight of its epistemological failure smacks it in the chest.
My "giving up" at this point is not eschatological. Jesus tells us to occupy until he comes. I just want to do that ETHICALLY.
I at least respect Amash for coming out with a statement on this, even though I don't agree with everything he said. Rand's silence on this simply disgusts me. The only reason I still support him at this point is because his foreign policy is far better than the other Republicans. If Cruz were identical to Rand on foreign policy I would eagerly support Cruz over Rand.
P3ter_Griffin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,979
Please tell me, what is one 'benefit' of marriage which is a coercive benefit? Tax breaks (less theft), inheritance benefits (that wouldn't be in question if it weren't for the greedy gov), and I do not know what other perks marriage provides. Why, if the government is going to be involved in and provide benefits for marriage, should we exclude gays? I feel your plight for the multiple lover gays, but I think it is safe to say that more people will not be discriminated against by their state because of this decision than will remain still being discriminated against, when it comes to marriage. The freedom of association has been dead a long time. This case had nothing to do with it.
The Founding Fathers followed John Locke's ideas about social contracts and social compacts. The colonists in the 13 Colonies were split between Whigs, Tories
and fence sitters. The Sons of Liberty began the struggle that took us out of the U.K, at least 80% of our citizens belonged to an identifiable branch of Christianity.
Catholics were often discriminated against back in the U.K and often hit the same degree of prejudice here. The number of Christian denominations other than
Anglican was greater than the number of wealthy colonials who were Anglican. We broke away from Henry VIII's Church and Henry VII's legitimate descendant.
Recently, even though there was a royal presence at the reburial of Richard III in that very modernistic tomb in Leicester, and even though he was rather Roman
Catholic, we did not see a televised service in Latin, just a mix of modern Anglican rites and a few concessions to the Catholic community. The Queen stayed away,
in part because the legal squabble over where he ought to be buried became a firestorm on the net. Our early Republic was very Christian even though the brighter
minds were often Humanistic Deists. The ability of the 13 Colonies to "hang together" was arrived at by having a secular realm compromise. Ben Franklin is one of
the architects of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. His quote is legendary, the other option was to "hang separately" and after a treason trial.
and fence sitters. The Sons of Liberty began the struggle that took us out of the U.K, at least 80% of our citizens belonged to an identifiable branch of Christianity.
Catholics were often discriminated against back in the U.K and often hit the same degree of prejudice here. The number of Christian denominations other than
Anglican was greater than the number of wealthy colonials who were Anglican. We broke away from Henry VIII's Church and Henry VII's legitimate descendant.
Recently, even though there was a royal presence at the reburial of Richard III in that very modernistic tomb in Leicester, and even though he was rather Roman
Catholic, we did not see a televised service in Latin, just a mix of modern Anglican rites and a few concessions to the Catholic community. The Queen stayed away,
in part because the legal squabble over where he ought to be buried became a firestorm on the net. Our early Republic was very Christian even though the brighter
minds were often Humanistic Deists. The ability of the 13 Colonies to "hang together" was arrived at by having a secular realm compromise. Ben Franklin is one of
the architects of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. His quote is legendary, the other option was to "hang separately" and after a treason trial.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,411
hxtp://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-silent-gay-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-2016-119500.html
Hmm.. he needs to stop with the nuanced responses to gotcha questions he needs spin proof 7 second sound bytes so they stop pigeon holing him on both sides of an issue. Its making voters on both sides of the fence turned off instead of encouraging those voters to meet in the middle.
Hmm.. he needs to stop with the nuanced responses to gotcha questions he needs spin proof 7 second sound bytes so they stop pigeon holing him on both sides of an issue. Its making voters on both sides of the fence turned off instead of encouraging those voters to meet in the middle.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,464
You think God will judge our nation? How very Old Testament of you. But Noah was given time to build an ark. So much for your theory that God will punish us for trying but failing to stop the evil.
Ever hear that you should, 'Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar and give unto God what is of God'? Learn how to draw the line. Otherwise, you're just as much a tool of evil people as the progs.
How can that be? Well, let's see. The government began licensing marriage, once considered the sole province of God, and then the government started changing the tax rate for married couples, and allowing spouses to opt out of testifying against their beloved, and forcing insurance companies to cover a customer and his or her spouse, and then it becomes a matter of discrimination. Then there's a victim. And then we get to worry about what we're doing to 'the least of these, by brethren'.
That's why trying to enforce God's Law with worldly legislation is a fool's errand.
The only way God's Law can work is if God takes a more active role again. And He seems determined not to do that until His Kingdom is at hand. Until then, our job is to lessen burdens, not heap burdens upon the heads of others the way Pharisees do.
This kind of thinking is literally why there are millions of drug users, who never harmed another living soul, in prison. Yes, son. I was there. People thought their Christian faith demanded that they put these peaceful souls in prison. Tell me. Do you really think God will judge someone who burned one of His plants and inhaled more harshly than someone who put him in a prison with murderers for it?
That's why you give unto Caesar only what is of Caesar. That's why Church and State were separated by the Constitution. To believe neither Jesus' admonition nor the First Amendment applies to you because you know better is prog-level arrogance. Only the religious and the socialist could ever be that arrogant.
An inability to bend and say, it isn't right but if I prevent you from doing it I open Pandora's Box, that allows both the theocrats and the progressives to incrementally fritter our freedom away, that is the problem. The fact that a few people over there are doing something that you think offends God is no reason to help the evil forces of tyranny keep us under the boot. For that is an offense against God and man.
Last edited:
I never said that I had a problem with the actual libertarian position of abolishing marriage licenses and getting the government out of marriage. In the Bible there was no government licensing or recognition of marriage, so I don't think it's a requirement that Christians have to support government involvement in marriage. I just have a problem with the fact that Rand simply won't give his position at all on this and is unwilling to vocally support religious liberty.
smokemonsc
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 186
This. The Civil Rights Act is what the person you quoted should be complaining about. Or they could complain about the 10th amendment being violated. But it's a big stretch to say this ruling affects religious freedom.
A problem here is that many traditional marriage supporters are not willing to give up their federal benefits, federal benefits which the federal government usurped the power to grant from the States. Everyone's a hypocrite lol.
I don't necessarily even believe in "traditional marriage" they way the term is defined today. I think often times in the Bible, including the Old Testament, God sanctioned marriages between a man and multiple women as well. I'm not arguing that marriage should be defined by government at all. I'm one of the few people here taking the actual libertarian position on this issue, advocating getting the government out of marriage, restoring the 10th Amendment, and preserving religious liberty.
smokemonsc
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 186
Christian business owners have been getting sued by special interest groups in America since 1776. There was a major uptick with the CRA. Nearly every lawsuit that has won, references the CRA in its arguments.
smokemonsc
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 186
I actually agree with most of what you are saying. The stickler for me I guess is saying this particular SCOTUS ruling affects religious liberty. I'll just have to respectfully disagree. To illustrate my point, if the CRA were repealed, there's no language in this SCOTUS ruling that affects religious liberty.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
I can probably tell you why Rand hasn't said anything yet. It's because he probably erroneously believes that this ruling was right, and he is having a hard time putting the words together to explain it to Christians. I don't think I've ever read that Rand has advocated for the true freedom position against licensure. Unfortunately, I don't see Rand being a person who is going to make religious liberty a central theme in his campaign, which is sad.
I agree that the Civil Rights Act is one of the primary reasons why Christian business owners are losing their religious freedom. Still, before the states began recognizing same sex marriages, there were no examples of Christian business owners being forced to provide services for same sex marriages. So the expansion of government marriage has contributed to the loss of religious liberty for Christians.
He isn't going to get my support financially if he doesn't speak out in favor of preserving religious liberty at all. Right now Rand is the worst Republican in the race on that particular issue.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
I agree. Really dumb strategy on Rand's part.
Similar threads
