Video: Rand Paul shrugs when asked if he could see himself eventually supporting gay marriage

posted at 2:01 pm on October 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

“I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,” he says. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage.” Of course, so did Obama circa 2008.

How do you suppose Ted Cruz would respond to this question?

“Society’s changing,” he said. “I mean, people change their minds all the time on this issue, and even within the Republican Party, there are people whose child turns out to be gay and they’re like, oh well maybe I want to rethink this issue. So it’s been rethought. The President’s rethought the issue. So I mean, a lot of people have rethought the issue.”…

“The bottom line is, I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,” he said. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

“You could rethink it at some point, too?” I asked him.

He shrugged, and gave me a half-grimace. It wasn’t a yes or a no, but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

Skip to 1:40 of the clip below if you want to see what a shrugging half-grimace looks like. It’s probably the best he can do under the circumstances. That question is easy for a guy like Cruz who’s running as an unapologetic social conservative, much harder for a guy like Rand who’s pitching to social cons and libertarians. The “I believe in traditional marriage now but who knows in a few years?” approach is a smart way to impress … well, nobody, really, but the uncertainty of the answer at least leaves room for each side to say “he agrees with us!”

In fairness to him, it’s not unheard of for a candidate named Paul to buck libertarian orthodoxy on a hot-button issue. As far as I’m aware, Ron has consistently called for stronger border enforcement contra the open-borders advocacy of libertarian ideologues. He and Rand are both pro-life too; libertarians tend to lean pro-choice in my experience although there seems to be more room for dissent on that issue than there is on immigration. Am I wrong, though, in thinking that legalizing gay marriage is basically Libertarianism 101? I know there’s at least one poll out there that suggests otherwise, but like this guy, I can’t recall encountering a single libertarian who opposes it. It seems to fall under the core principle that whatever two people consent to do is no one else’s business, so long as no one else is harmed by it. If that’s the case, it’s … odd that someone like Rand who came up immersed in the libertarian tradition would feel differently, especially at a moment when the wider public is shifting towards legalization. This is why people on both sides of the conservative/libertarian divide get suspicious about him. Either his foundation in libertarianism is much less solid than his dad’s and the adoring base of rEVOLutionaries whom Rand hopes to win or he’s BS-ing about his true feelings on this issue to reassure social cons that he’s not a loose cannon. Guess we’ll find out which it is once he’s a lame-duck president circa 2022.

Exit question: Is this going to make his life permanently harder with social conservatives or is it a blip? The Hill noted last week that Cruz and Bobby Jindal got roaring support from the crowd at the Values Voters Summit while Rand, who conceded a few months ago that abortion laws probably aren’t changing anytime soon, was received politely but tepidly. Rand’s candidacy could be shaping up as the converse of Ron’s in the sense that Ron focused mainly on foreign policy critiques and monetary policy, with social issues secondary. I think Rand would like to follow that model but will end up getting sidetracked by social issues as conservatives demand that he explain himself further.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

on this issue he seems to go both ways, iykwimaityd..

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on October 3, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Is there any issue at all, at this point, that Rand Paul has remained consistent on? I’m so disappointed in him. I thought he was a principled conservative, and he turns out just to be another politician.

Shump on October 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Rand Paul is Mitt Romney version 2.0. He will say whatever he thinks the majority of his audience wants to hear. Like Mitt, he has no core.

bw222 on October 3, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Well, at some point Rand is going to have to decide exactly WHAT he is.

Is he a Libertarian?
Is he a conservative?
Is he a progressive?
Is he a GOPe cabana boy?

At this point, Rand is still trying to pander his way to victory – but, his shtick is really wearing thin.

No one knows what Rand Paul is, and with each passing day, fewer and fewer people want to.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM

If that’s the case, it’s … odd that someone like Rand who came up immersed in the libertarian tradition would feel differently, especially at a moment when the wider public is shifting towards legalization.

It’s entirely possible that libertarians live their PERSONAL lives as social conservatives but believe nanny government has no role in legislating it.

John the Libertarian on October 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM

“Society’s changing,” he (Rand Paul) said. “I mean, people change their minds all the time on this issue, and even within the Republican Party, there are people whose child turns out to be gay and they’re like, oh well maybe I want to rethink this issue. So it’s been rethought. The President’s rethought the issue. So I mean, a lot of people have rethought the issue.”…
“The bottom line is, I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,”
he said. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

“You could rethink it at some point, too?” I (Peter Hamby) asked him.
He shrugged, and gave me a half-grimace. It wasn’t a yes or a no, but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

Peter Hamby, CNN on October 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM

.
Christians are going to continue to resist, reject, and defy same-sex marriage … what anyone else (including Rand) think about it, be damned.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Say what you believe and stick to it.

Or move aside.

profitsbeard on October 3, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Just one month before the big 2014 elections, the question should not be anything about the tiresome “Let us all be gay?”.

These following are the questions that should be asked:

Are you more or less likely to be infected with a third world disease like tuberculosis or Ebola than you were six years ago?

Are you more or less likely to be beheaded at work or elsewhere than you were six years ago?

VorDaj on October 3, 2014 at 2:12 PM

“I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.


His true position does not require him to be in favor or against gay marriage. He is clear that he does not view the government as having a role in marriage.

airupthere on October 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I’m a libertarian against state sanctioned gay marriage.
Because the argument for it is largely that the state is going to bestow stability and dignity on the relationship via a state license.

Allah – do any of these libertarians you know speak of “gay marriage bans” like you do?

gwelf on October 3, 2014 at 2:15 PM

AP homosexuals today are fascistic bullies….

sorrowen on October 3, 2014 at 2:15 PM

It wasn’t a yes or a no, but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

This reinforces my sense that Rand Paul is constantly hedging, yes, like dancing or pirouetting through the issues. The man needs to start taking firm stands, one way or the other. And ironically the critical area where he needs to be clear and bold in firmness is not on social or security issues but with his strong positions against big government and bloated entitlements. Oddly we hear little about that from Paul. If he’s going to double talk and hedge about big govt instead of being a straight shooter, then Paul will start to look like little more than an equivocating Romney style issue skirter. And the last thing we want is another Romney.

anotherJoe on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Stop arguing over a word. The government should not be in the business of changing the meanings of words. Call all unions sanctioned by the government (that burns my butt that one would need permission from the government to form a union) civil unions. Make all unions equal. Then allow marriage to be decided by each church and.or couple. End of story.

allstonian on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

He shrugged, and gave me a half-grimace. It wasn’t a yes or a no, but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

This is what happens when you don’t know how you’re supposed to answer. Nobody told him what he thinks about gay marriage.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Yawn.

Rand Paul will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

It’s entirely possible that libertarians live their PERSONAL lives as social conservatives but believe nanny government has no role in legislating it.

John the Libertarian on October 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM

+1

Most libertarians I see ague for state SSM speak of it in terms of “contracts”. Except marriage really isn’t a contract. It’s also the only time I see libertarians vehemently argue for the state to regulate something (and the implications that the state will force private individuals, businesses and institutions to act in state defined ways towards recognized relationships).

gwelf on October 3, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Well, at some point Rand is going to have to decide exactly WHAT he is.

Is he a Libertarian?
Is he a conservative?
Is he a progressive?
Is he a GOPe cabana boy?

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Why? So that various self-appointed purists can tell him isn’t?
Ted Cruz crushing it at Values Voters simply signifies that he can can pander fully to the only base he has. Rand Paul is vastly more honest guy and so much less an ideologue than Cruz.
He’s knows that if he progress nationally, all of the groups you mention will be fighting to claim him as their own.
(Maybe progressives not so much – though he’s mining that vein as well.)
Cruz could’ve existed any time in the last 40 years. He’s a predictable caricature. He believes what he’s saying…but he’s still acting.
Rand Paul, however one feels about him or his stance on various issues, is a thoroughly modern candidate and politician.
And for sure, no doubt at all, he will fully support SSM.
He’ll just make the personal decision not to marry a man himself.
Because he’s, you know, ‘old fashioned’.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

OT Breaking News: Another Ebola Patient Headed To Omaha For Treatment

OmahaConservative on October 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

DC’s got their patient! And yet, there is no move afoot to limit “visitors” from the region.

At a very minimum, Obama should use his pen and phone to order Customs to ask EVERYBODY coming into the country if they have been to Western Africa. If so, then a screening criteria should be applied.

It is absurd, the DC suspected patient is from Nigeria. Who knows how many people he has been contact with in a densely populated area. They going to be able to locate everybody that were with him on the Metro?

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2014 at 2:21 PM

But it does harm people. It harms society to make marriage meaningless, it harms adopted kids if agencies have to pretend a homosexual family is equivalent to a normal one.

It harms everyone to pretend these differences don’t exist.

p0s3r on October 3, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Stop arguing over a word. The government should not be in the business of changing the meanings of words. Call all unions sanctioned by the government (that burns my butt that one would need permission from the government to form a union) civil unions. Make all unions equal. Then allow marriage to be decided by each church and.or couple. End of story.

allstonian on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

i don’t get that either. why should you need some kind of government seal of approval in order to get married? it’s something i used to never question, but then i started to question it.

Sachiko on October 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Rand Paul 2016

Shifting Forward!

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Modern candidate?
Ha ha ha.
It took progressive wunderkind Obama until 2012 to publicly embrace SSM (during an election season when the SSM donors weren’t coughing up cash).
And now everyone across the land must get with the program. That until 2 years ago the progressive god-king barely brought himself to embrace. You lefties never fail to move those goal posts as fast as possible.
But no doubt you’re correct – in the 2016 election any politician who takes Obama’s position on SSM before May 2012 will be pilloried by the left as a hateful bigot who shouldn’t be allowed in the public square for being on the wrong side of history (and don’t let the arc of justice hit you on the way out).

gwelf on October 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Happy Nomad
OT Breaking News: Another Ebola Patient Headed To Omaha For Treatment
OmahaConservative on October 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Why aren’t these people being sent to Gitmo instead of middle America?

can_con on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Go see Drudge

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Why? So that various self-appointed purists can tell him isn’t?
Ted Cruz crushing it at Values Voters simply signifies that he can can pander fully to the only base he has. Rand Paul is vastly more honest guy and so much less an ideologue than Cruz.
He’s knows that if he progress nationally, all of the groups you mention will be fighting to claim him as their own.
(Maybe progressives not so much – though he’s mining that vein as well.)
Cruz could’ve existed any time in the last 40 years. He’s a predictable caricature. He believes what he’s saying…but he’s still acting.
Rand Paul, however one feels about him or his stance on various issues, is a thoroughly modern candidate and politician.
And for sure, no doubt at all, he will fully support SSM.
He’ll just make the personal decision not to marry a man himself.
Because he’s, you know, ‘old fashioned’.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

so the more groups someone tries to pander to, the more honest they are? okaaaay…

Sachiko on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

ISO and Ebola will take care of all things, soon.

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Yawn.

Rand Paul will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on October 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Daddy won’t let him…

“He touted “growing” support for secession bids inside America, and said those who “embrace secession are acting in a grand American tradition.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/will-ron-paul-new-secession-remarks-weigh-on-son-rand-potential-white-house-bid/

bummer

*snicker*

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM

If only PC would kill its perpetrators, first. That w/b poetic justice.

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM

I’ll apologize first. Sorry, I think he’s too vertically challenged to be president.

Shallow, but size matters. Well, in height anyway.

He’d look like a little kid bounding down the steps of AF-1.

tru2tx on October 3, 2014 at 2:32 PM

When we have an ‘American’ culture controlled and manipulated by Hollowood and Socialist plants in the indoctrination system, is it any wonder that the hoi polloi are yin and yanged from left to right and all points in between, especially when there has been an all out assault for the last 50 years on all things Christian? Pop culture and flavor of the day politics do not a morally strong country, make, no matter what Allah’s machinations of right/wrong may pontificate. Whut? The American people have been offered so many ‘choices’ that they have lost all understanding of what, truly, is right or wrong. Homosexual marriage is an abomination to Christianity, no matter how modern pseudo-Christians or idiot libtrarians may attempt to twist the Scriptures or the Constitution to fit the ‘changing times’. Untempered ‘freedom’ leads to license, which was understood by the Fathers could lead to the undoing of the Republic. We are on that path.

vnvet on October 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Go see Drudge

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Duncan’s baby mama is whining about the quarantine cause the sheriff won’t let them leave…and this is day 3

The Stupid will kill us all…

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 2:35 PM

but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

That’s good writing. Really captures the spirit of the thing.

cbenoistd on October 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Like we don’t have bigger problems than ‘needing’ a government blessing for ghey secks.

Corporal Tunnel on October 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM

I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,” he says. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage.” Of course, so did Obama circa 2008.

Who gives a rat’s a$$? Is this the best gotcha question the media
has besides questions re the abortion racket?

As for Obama, the gays in Chicago do not call him “Bathhouse
Barry” for nothing.

Amjean on October 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I’ll apologize first. Sorry, I think he’s too vertically challenged to be president.

Shallow, but size matters. Well, in height anyway.

tru2tx on October 3, 2014 at 2:32 PM

I’ll be the first to admit your concerns are justified. Height, does in fact, matter.

But not if the Dems run someone shorter.

And puffier…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM

When he decides pandering to which group – Conservatives, Libertarians, gays, – will produce better results,he’ll figure out what he really thinks. Seems like he is developing his father’s “need” to be President and thinks the path to getting elected is to try and be all things to all people.

katiejane on October 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Why?

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Oh my. You are in orbit.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, most people want to know what a candidate stands for. No one, including you, can honestly say what Rand Paul stands for at any given moment, because he changes with the wind. Now, you may think that that makes Rand “honest” and “modern”, but, you are obviously in the minority.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Well, at some point Rand is going to have to decide exactly WHAT he is.

Is he a Libertarian?
Is he a conservative?
Is he a progressive?
Is he a GOPe cabana boy?

At this point, Rand is still trying to pander his way to victory – but, his shtick is really wearing thin.

No one knows what Rand Paul is, and with each passing day, fewer and fewer people want to.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Phony?

Labels are so…last century or something…

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Why aren’t these people being sent to Gitmo instead of middle America?

can_con on October 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM

I suppose because they are white American professionals?

OmahaConservative on October 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM

143.True conservatives would not oppose free individuals’ constitutional rights to hold religious ceremonies. In that regard yes, a large number of young Republicans could be misconstrued to “support” gay marriage, and opposition could be mischaracterized as “religious fanaticism”.

However, marriage LICENSING is a legal construct which was instituted with specific parameters designed to best benefit a procreative continuance strategy, and streamline the public’s inevitable interactions with the legal system in determining citizenship, guardianship, and inheritance, also known as “providing for the general welfare.” Creating special privileges and exemptions to an established and purpose-driven licensing regimen merely because a vocal minority wants it, and also wants to use the force of law as a cudgel to extort social acceptance from their critics, is not compatible with rational governance, let alone conservative principles.

You might as well have gerbil owners demanding dog licenses for their gerbils. Because to not be regulated and sanctioned by government is somehow a sign of gerbilphobia. Trying to calmly explain WHY there exists such a license requirement for dogs, and how redundant regimens for pets of all stripes would be a complete waste of public resources requiring massive new abusive government powers, is merely inviting accusations of gerbil hatred.

It is the height of dishonesty to ignore the voluminous well reasoned secular oppositions to special-licensing-privileges-for-gays-only, and mischaracterize it all as some spiteful religious crusade to deny natural human rights.

Any gay person has the right, TODAY, to participate in any religious ceremony or enter a binding contract with any partner they so desire. They also have the right to apply for a marriage license which will be approved or denied based on the same established parameters upon which every straight applicant’s is processed, also known as equal protection.

Just say no to unconstitutional liberal social engineering.

CapnObvious on October 3, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Am I wrong, though, in thinking that legalizing gay marriage is basically Libertarianism 101?

Yes, you’re wrong. Libertarianism 101 is legalizing all drugs, and damn the predictable consequences. That’s why libertarianism is about good principled stances and Libertarianism is really just libertinism.

CapnObvious on October 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Christians are going to continue to resist, reject, and defy same-sex marriage … what anyone else (including Rand) think about it, be damned.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM

As is their right, and as they should do based upon the tenents of their faith.

However, the battle on the issue of gay marriage is one that the social conservatives lost in the overall culture war. And abortion was lost a long time ago (in that most Americans don’t want the “right” taken away, even if most find it morally detestable).

So the question to ask, looking ahead to 2016, which issues do you want be your (or the GOP nominee’s, really) “hill to die on.”

For me, it’s not gay marriage or abortion. Because one is going to be a reality soon enough, and the other isn’t going away any time soon (and by soon, I mean “ever”).

I’m much more concerned with a candidate who’s more solid on the economy, eliminating Obamacare (in some fashion), immigration, etc.

(none of this is in support or condemnation of Paul – I just know that in 2016, I’m not going to be basing my vote in the general election or the primaries before that on whether the candidate is against gay marriage or is giving lip service about eliminating abortion)

Vyce on October 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Why?

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Oh my. You are in orbit.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, most people want to know what a candidate stands for. No one, including you, can honestly say what Rand Paul stands for at any given moment, because he changes with the wind. Now, you may think that that makes Rand “honest” and “modern”, but, you are obviously in the minority.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Well actually, here on earth, there has been a significant trend upwards in the acceptance of SSM – along with a progressive shift on many other social issues. So most voters can and do relate to someone’s position evolving on these types of issues. It’s only in places where they hold silly purity contests – I mean straw polls – that people demand ideological consistency.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:55 PM

“It seems to fall under the core principle that whatever two people consent to do is no one else’s business.”

Unless of course those two people aren’t supportive of celebrating along with a ss couple. Or running Hobby Lobby, or a Catholic adoption agency, or some sort of DemonJesus-backed toy drive.

And then it’s totally everybody else’s business.

I would be fine with ssm being legalized if there were someone that would defend a Christians right to operate in the public square without being coerced into celebrating along with them. We don’t insist other faiths break their principles, and in fact have often catered to them – unless they’re Christian.

Protect their right to freedom of expression instead of enabling the state to establish “acceptable” and “unacceptable” religious practice through the back door, and I could care less what you do.

But as usual, it’s not enough that I simply ask you adopt your child or buy your cake from someone else. The government needs to make sure I provide it personally, to mitigate the lack of appropriate cake access for the LBTQ crowd.

Recon5 on October 3, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this

Leave marriage to the churches.

rhombus on October 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Which is why the social liberals would much rather discuss social issues and the perpetual SVU than any of the prime issues like natsec, economy, etc. Based on my own observations of the libertarian “leaning” crowd, including the millenials, their emphasis isn’t on lower tax rates or incentivizing biz. When they say “limited govt”, they mean doing away with drug laws and abortion restrictions along with marginalzing the cake bakers and punishing the 1%.

They could give a rats behind about what’s truly “Constitutional” at the end of the day. They’re big believers in the “negative liberties” Lightbringer ran against.

“So the question to ask, looking ahead to 2016, which issues do you want be your (or the GOP nominee’s, really) “hill to die on.”

For me, it’s not gay marriage or abortion. Because one is going to be a reality soon enough, and the other isn’t going away any time soon (and by soon, I mean “ever”).

I’m much more concerned with a candidate who’s more solid on the economy, eliminating Obamacare (in some fashion), immigration, etc.”

Vyce on October 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Recon5 on October 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

That’s about the way I feel. SSM isn’t really an issue for me, but pro life certainly is.

cat_owner on October 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Am I wrong, though, in thinking that legalizing gay marriage is basically Libertarianism 101?

Yes, you’re wrong. Libertarianism 101 is legalizing all drugs, and damn the predictable consequences. That’s why libertarianism is about good principled stances and Libertarianism is really just libertinism.

CapnObvious on October 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Yep.

Potfarmers are chopping down redwoods that are 100’s of years old in California…because it’s justifiable when we’re talking Pot…

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM

A consistent libertarian would take the position that the government (assuming that one exists) should stay out of the marriage business altogether.

whoishe on October 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM

As a libertarian, how difficult is it for Rand to say…”I’m a libertarian and liberty is grounded in property rights. The word “Marriage” belongs to the union of one man and one woman. Gay couples should have the right to form their own unions and call it something else.”

I think that’s where most people are on this issue…just call it something else. A recent Pew poll showed support for gay marriage weakening to “plurality”. That why there is a rush to push it through. Once people think about gay marriage and the consequences, they may change their mind.

monalisa on October 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Why? So that various self-appointed purists can tell him isn’t?

Ted Cruz crushing it at Values Voters simply signifies that he can can pander fully to the only base he has.

Rand Paul is vastly more honest guy and so much less an ideologue than Cruz.

He’s knows
that if he progress nationally, all of the groups you mention will be fighting to claim him as their own.

Cruz could’ve existed any time in the last 40 years.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Sheer brilliance, as always.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

That’s about the way I feel. SSM isn’t really an issue for me, but pro life certainly is.

cat_owner on October 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM

The objection to SSM and the objection to abortion are both rooted in The Natural Law.

The Natural Law if the foundation of Western Civilization…including our constitution.

Some things are simply black and white.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/676

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Captain Obvious – YES. I am in awe.

vnvet on October 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM

As a libertarian, how difficult is it for Rand to say…”I’m a libertarian and liberty is grounded in property rights. The word “Marriage” belongs to the union of one man and one woman. Gay couples should have the right to form their own unions and call it something else.”

I think that’s where most people are on this issue…just call it something else. A recent Pew poll showed support for gay marriage weakening to “plurality”. That why there is a rush to push it through. Once people think about gay marriage and the consequences, they may change their mind.

monalisa on October 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Because many people have surrendered marriage to be redefined and reconstructed by social engineering anarchists.

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Vyce on October 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Long time no see.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Well actually, here on earth, there has been a significant trend upwards in the acceptance of SSM – along with a progressive shift on many other social issues. So most voters can and do relate to someone’s position evolving on these types of issues. It’s only in places where they hold silly purity contests – I mean straw polls – that people demand ideological consistency.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:55 PM

No one with a brain is going to vote for someone who “evolves” on an hourly basis – because a candidate like this obviously cannot be trusted.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this

Leave marriage to the churches.

rhombus on October 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Churches are bad.

Mosques are good and don’t complain about the Quranic savagery because that would be racist.

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

In a truly libertarian stateless society, immigration would not be an issue, as it would be a matter of private property. With a limited, constitutional government, such as once existed in America, the government could be said to be holding federal lands in trust for the citizens, and as such should act on their behalf to restrict access to such lands as the citizenry sees fit.

whoishe on October 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Rand Paul, however one feels about him or his stance on various issues, is a thoroughly modern candidate and politician.
verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Like Obama was so much smarter and modern in 2008 than that old fashioned chimpy Bush?

antisocial on October 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Maybe Rand will evolve on true marriage equality -polygamy- too.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM

whoishe on October 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Or, the govt could just protect the damn border.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Late night and travel.
Apologies for all the typos.
(Just so you know, I meant ‘can’ – not ‘can can’.)

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You don’t have to apologize for being a dope, thanks.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

That defense, or explanation, or whatever that was, seems as wishy washy as his answer. How quaint.

anuts on October 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Some things are simply black and white.

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM

So they are.

Like the fact that, despite all the high-handed bullshiite about “Natural Law”, “marriage” is a construction of the civil law. There is no “marriage” in the State of Nature. There is only copulation. It is not until civil society steps in, defines the boundaries and legal ramifications, privileges, and obligations, that “marriage” takes on any meaning.

And as such, in our Republic, civil society is, in large part, represented by legislatures. These legislatures set the boundaries, and outline the ramifications, privileges, and obligations associated with marriage. And if the legislatures want to allow marriage law to apply to same sex couples, then that is the Law.

In black and white…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

The problem with SSM is that it doesn’t stop there. We have seen that many Christian businesses have been sued for not providing goods for SSM wedding ceremonies. It is denying the right to worship freely and forcing others to embrace their lifestyle.
SSM advocates are forcing the education of their sexual habits on elementary school aged children.See California as an example. (Children in our society are already over-exposed to sex). We do not need to be teaching kindergartners about masturbation, anal sex, or any type of sex whatsoever. Let them be kids for a while. But with the Little Johnny has two dads or moms crowd, they are demanding that kids be “educated” about SSM and in doing so sex gets added to the discussion as part of the explanation.
It’s not just “their business in their own bedroom” when they start demanding that our kids get indoctrinated, and that business owners must serve SSM against their own religious beliefs.

searcher on October 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM

we need to create a Department of Marriage at the federal level. they could issue marriage ID cards, ask creepy personal questions, and make surprise home visits to inspect marriages are meeting federal regulations.

burserker on October 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Rand should know better. Only Democrats can get away with this.

DisneyFan on October 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

What do you mean that it isn’t found in nature? Are human beings unnatural?

You’re defining something that is as old as humanity itself as the product of legislatures. Not only is that silly in and of itself my friend, but you seem to place a lot of faith in the common sense and humanity of politicians.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM

So they are.

Like the fact that, despite all the high-handed bullshiite about “Natural Law”, “marriage” is a construction of the civil law. There is no “marriage” in the State of Nature. There is only copulation. It is not until civil society steps in, defines the boundaries and legal ramifications, privileges, and obligations, that “marriage” takes on any meaning.

And as such, in our Republic, civil society is, in large part, represented by legislatures. These legislatures set the boundaries, and outline the ramifications, privileges, and obligations associated with marriage. And if the legislatures want to allow marriage law to apply to same sex couples, then that is the Law.

In black and white…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

The “state of nature” isn’t The Natural Law that is foundational in Western Civilization and applied to our constitution and legal structures.

Try and educate yourself.

Start here…It’s a free

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/676

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

What do you mean that it isn’t found in nature? Are human beings unnatural?

You’re defining something that is as old as humanity itself as the product of legislatures. Not only is that silly in and of itself my friend, but you seem to place a lot of faith in the common sense and humanity of politicians.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM

He doesn’t even know what The Natural Law is…much less it’s history in western civilization.

Philosophy,history and civics are no longer taught in schools…but anybody who isn’t intellectually lazy can still learn.

Philosophy doesn’t begin or end with Ayn Rand

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

What do you mean that it isn’t found in nature? Are human beings unnatural?

You’re defining something that is as old as humanity itself as the product of legislatures. Not only is that silly in and of itself my friend, but you seem to place a lot of faith in the common sense and humanity of politicians.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Human beings are natural. Copulation is natural. “Marriage” is not natural. It is the product of civil society. Our understanding of it well depends on our position within history, and our position on the globe.

Humanity predates civil society. Copulation predates civil society. “Marriage” does not. Without the laws, traditions, and norms that do not predate civil society, “marriage” is meaningless.

And marriage was not always the product of legislatures. But it was always the product of “law”. And not some nonsense known as “Natural Law”. It is the product of man’s law. Debated by man. Written by man. Enforced by man. That we are fortunate enough to have the power of making man’s law vested in a legislature, as opposed to by a king or dictator, is a testament to Western society. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is man’s law that governs “mariage”…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

So they are.
Like the fact that, despite all the high-handed bullshiite about “Natural Law”, “marriage” is a construction of the civil law. There is no “marriage” in the State of Nature. There is only copulation. It is not until civil society steps in, defines the boundaries and legal ramifications, privileges, and obligations, that “marriage” takes on any meaning.
And as such, in our Republic, civil society is, in large part, represented by legislatures. These legislatures set the boundaries, and outline the ramifications, privileges, and obligations associated with marriage. And if the legislatures want to allow marriage law to apply to same sex couples, then that is the Law.
In black and white…
JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Marriage is as old as civilization itself.

Wait. Even that is understating it. Marriage is older then civilization. When a new government takes over, are all existing marriages considered null and void? Can you name anywhere in the world that has ever happened?

The very first governments were based on families AKA tribes. Government doesn’t create marriage. Marriages created government.

It’s absolutely amazing the lengths people will go to in order to justify the government spontaneously redefining marriage.

There Goes the Neighborhood on October 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

None of that can you prove.

Marriage and by extension the family together constitute civilization. If you want to govern yourself by the standards of pre-civilized man (granting for the sake of argument such a man) because of the abstruse Libertarian nonsense you’ve swallowed whole, go on ahead. Just don’t expect a flood of followers.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Human beings are natural. Copulation is natural. “Marriage” is not natural. It is the product of civil society. Our understanding of it well depends on our position within history, and our position on the globe.

Humanity predates civil society. Copulation predates civil society. “Marriage” does not. Without the laws, traditions, and norms that do not predate civil society, “marriage” is meaningless.

And marriage was not always the product of legislatures. But it was always the product of “law”. And not some nonsense known as “Natural Law”. It is the product of man’s law. Debated by man. Written by man. Enforced by man. That we are fortunate enough to have the power of making man’s law vested in a legislature, as opposed to by a king or dictator, is a testament to Western society. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is man’s law that governs “mariage”…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

“Natural Rights” proceeds from The Natural Law which is foundational to Western Civilization.

“The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Every man, because he is a man, is bound, if he will conform to the universal order willed by the Creator, to live conformably to his own rational nature, and to be guided by reason. However, infants and insane persons, who have not the actual use of their reason and cannot therefore know the law, are not responsible for that failure to comply with its demands.

The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Every man, because he is a man, is bound, if he will conform to the universal order willed by the Creator, to live conformably to his own rational nature, and to be guided by reason. However, infants and insane persons, who have not the actual use of their reason and cannot therefore know the law, are not responsible for that failure to comply with its demands…”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

“The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson’s draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed some key ideas: “all men are created equal,” “inalienable rights,” “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where did Jefferson get these ideas?

Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the “laws of nature” humanity could be improved.

Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself said that he had adopted the “harmonizing sentiments of the day.” These ideas were, so to speak, “in the air” at the time.

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England’s Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By “property,” Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one’s self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with “a long train of abuses” over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke’s theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George’s tyranny over the colonists.”

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Human beings are natural. Copulation is natural. “Marriage” is not natural. It is the product of civil society. Our understanding of it well depends on our position within history, and our position on the globe.

Humanity predates civil society. Copulation predates civil society. “Marriage” does not. Without the laws, traditions, and norms that do not predate civil society, “marriage” is meaningless.

And marriage was not always the product of legislatures. But it was always the product of “law”. And not some nonsense known as “Natural Law”. It is the product of man’s law. Debated by man. Written by man. Enforced by man. That we are fortunate enough to have the power of making man’s law vested in a legislature, as opposed to by a king or dictator, is a testament to Western society. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is man’s law that governs “mariage”…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Copulation is natural…Does that mean no law for who copulates and how they copulate?

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind.

“The chairman of the council, Christiane Woopen, was among the 14 members voting in favour of repealing the law, while nine people voted for the ban to continue and two abstained.

“The majority of the German Ethics Council is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo,” the council said. “In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.

“The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family,” the council added. “Incest between siblings appears to be very rare in Western societies according to the available data but those affected describe how difficult their situation is in light of the threat of punishment….”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/german-ethics-council-votes-in-favour-of-allowing-incest-between-siblings/story-fnet09p2-1227069702897

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Human beings are natural. Copulation is natural. “Marriage” is not natural. It is the product of civil society. Our understanding of it well depends on our position within history, and our position on the globe.

Humanity predates civil society. Copulation predates civil society. “Marriage” does not. Without the laws, traditions, and norms that do not predate civil society, “marriage” is meaningless.

And marriage was not always the product of legislatures. But it was always the product of “law”. And not some nonsense known as “Natural Law”. It is the product of man’s law. Debated by man. Written by man. Enforced by man. That we are fortunate enough to have the power of making man’s law vested in a legislature, as opposed to by a king or dictator, is a testament to Western society. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is man’s law that governs “mariage”…

JohnGalt23 on October 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Human beings are natural.

Murder is natural.

Human Beings are natural.

Cannibalism is natural.

Human Beings are natural.

Rape is natural.

yada yada yada…

workingclass artist on October 3, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Once again the Galtian proves why modern Libertarianism is mentally bankrupt with an appeal to “naturalism” that will impress nobody with an IQ greater than a baked potato.

As for Rand, I actually applaud him for dodging this because until unless is elected, he can do almost nothing to even slow down the gayfia. And to bring their wrath on himself before that time is career suicide. He’ll have time enough in their crosshairs.

LawfulGood on October 3, 2014 at 10:10 PM

This is why senators are not good candidates for executives. They have opinions about everything, based on little experience and less responsibility – they are professional opinion-holders and as such reserve the right to alter their opinions as necessary.

This is not what we need in a president. That person has to have principles, based on good judgment and experience. Their “opinions” are subordinate to their sense of duty and ability to perform.

virgo on October 4, 2014 at 1:19 AM