So what does Rand think about the Kentucky marriage ruling?

[TaftFan]

This is an open question and hasn't been answered yet.

In case you missed it, a federal judge invalidated Kentucky's constitution which now means Kentucky must recognize the gay marriages of other states

Until it is answered, Steve Deace is going to harp on it. And the more he harps on it, the worse Rand's Iowa chances are. Complicating the matter, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have just introduced a bill to protect states like Kentucky from federal intervention. Randy Weber introduced similar legislation in the House.

So Rand needs to say something about this. It's his home state.

If someone close to him is reading this, send him a message.

[Brett85]

He probably just wants to avoid the issue since this is now a losing issue for Republicans, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that he supports gay marriage, as Steve Deace is strangely suggesting.

[TaftFan]

He probably just wants to avoid the issue since this is now a losing issue for Republicans, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that he supports gay marriage, as Steve Deace is strangely suggesting.

Deace isn't suggesting he supports gay marriage. He is suggesting that Rand wants social conservative support but won't fight for them even when there is a common cause like federalism.

I've been all about playing the political game. But I now think Rand is going too far down that path. He shouldn't be afraid to take an unpopular stand every once in a while. He might find that doing so will actually increase his popularity.

[Brett85]

Deace isn't suggesting he supports gay marriage. He is suggesting that Rand wants social conservative support but won't fight for them even when there is a common cause like federalism.

I've been all about playing the political game. But I now think Rand is going too far down that path. He shouldn't be afraid to take an unpopular stand every once in a while. He might find that doing so will actually increase his popularity.

Yeah, and he takes unpopular and harmful stances when he criticizes Bill Clinton and brings up something that happened 20 years ago, so it doesn't seem like taking a strong stand for states' rights on the marriage issue would hurt him nearly as much as that.

[serenityrick]

Seems like a good opportunity to appeal to both sides by speaking the truth about how the federal government should have NO involvement with marriage whatsoever but that all couples should have the same rights in terms of things like estate, hospital visitation, etc. Would appeal to most conservatives who want smaller government (should be ALL conservatives but we are talking about dumb, progressives here) and appeal to moderate democrats who would probably agree (albeit in private most likely) that marraige should be about love and they get the 'rights' that they are seeking.

In this particular case he should argue for states rights and then end it with the aforementioned.

[Christian Liberty]

Constitutionally, this seems obvious to me. But, in all honesty, explaining why would probably invalidate Loving v Virginia, which would get people screaming "racist" despite the fact that no state would ever ban interracial marriage again.

[FriedChicken]

I guess Rand doesn't want to have a quote floating around to bite him later on from either side - hedging that nobody will care in 2016 unless there are words of his they can twist.
Perhaps that IS the right thing to do and just use the NSA scandal/lawsuit as his way of staying in the news.

Whatever he says on the matter will be taken out of context by somebody wanting to make him look bad during the presidential election - either the primary or the general depending on what exactly he said.

But I've definitely been using this as an opportunity to discuss why the government even need be involved.

[CaptUSA]

Geez... if someone asked him the question, I bet he'd answer it.

It's just not his main focus. There are lots of issues out there to talk about. If this is what people want to know about, someone will probably ask him soon. Personally, I don't think social wedge issues are in our wheelhouse, right now. We have stronger cards to play.

[TaftFan]

Geez... if someone asked him the question, I bet he'd answer it.

It's just not his main focus. There are lots of issues out there to talk about. If this is what people want to know about, someone will probably ask him soon. Personally, I don't think social wedge issues are in our wheelhouse, right now. We have stronger cards to play.
Deace has invited him to his show. I hope he shows up.

[libertarian101]

Rand support amnesty, support 6.3 trillion spending on illegal immigrant and now he can't even support states rights on marriage? why don't he join the democrat party because I don't see any conservative voting for him.

[mz10]

Rand support amnesty, support 6.3 trillion spending on illegal immigrant and now he can't even support states rights on marriage? why don't he join the democrat party because I don't see any conservative voting for him.

You are an insane troll. Go away. :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

You are an insane troll. Go away. :rolleyes:

I agree. He just says the exact same thing in every post. It's very annoying.

[dillo]

Gay Marriage is a losing issue to talk about. He should change the subject to economics and civil rights any time hes asked about it.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand support amnesty, support 6.3 trillion spending on illegal immigrant and now he can't even support states rights on marriage? why don't he join the democrat party because I don't see any conservative voting for him.

You are lying. You have been shown repeatedly that what you are asserting about Rand is not true, but you keep going from thread-to-thread repeating the same lies.

Here is Rand's position on immigration.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12


I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation's security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border

[TaftFan]

Rand does support amnesty, but not blanket citizenship.

[GunnyFreedom]

He probably just wants to avoid the issue since this is now a losing issue for Republicans, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that he supports gay marriage, as Steve Deace is strangely suggesting.

Really this is it. Even when you agree with your base, you know what issues are an election-killer come November, and try not to go near it. This situation is a result of the mainstream GOP today not really comprehending the paradigm of anybody under 35. The world through technology has become an entirely different place. "The Rules" from 1970 are just not the same in 2014. The universe is moving faster every day, while the Republican Party is death-grip determined to move ever slower and slower to adapt to the new reality. If the GOP goes extinct, it will not be because we didn't legitimately try to save it. We did, and when the new successful party arises from the GOP's ashes based around a much more Constitutionalist platform and then proceeds to dominate the Democrats all over America, then they will know that we were just trying to help all along. Until then, many of them will remain ignorant willfully, because a cold anger seems to taste better than a principled disagreement.

It is like why a lot of the mainstream hate me over marriage. Everything I did in 2011 was actually an effort to save traditional marriage. Because my efforts were different from 'the crowd' many of the people who care about traditional marriage have decided that I am a traitor and their conclusions will not be shaken by any means. The difference, of course, is I was looking 10 and 20 years ahead and seeing the trouble their actions would cause down the road, while they were looking only 6 months ahead to the bonus it would give them in the upcoming primary elections. The way I figure it, in another 14 years or so the damage will be evident, or now it seems the Supreme Court may end up working even faster than I predicted. Eventually, it will come around that my proposal to ban the state licensure of marriage was the correct idea all along and then many of ones who think I am a traitor now will be forced to reassess their recollections of 2011.

[GunnyFreedom]

I read the thread title and my first thought was, "oh for goodness sake people, please don't ask him that!" Literally nothing but harm can come from that question, even (maybe especially) if you are on the pro traditional marriage side. Regardless of his answer, the Democrats will have him in derision because of it and will make the General 10x harder, while either way he came down on the question will be better than the guy already there, and if you get the answer you actually want he crashes and burns in the General. It's not productive to any faction to ask a question like that, so if I were Rand, I would likely presume that anyone asking that particular question is actively attempting to cause political damage. Regardless of his personal opinion on the matter, which from what I know I assume is conservative and oriented towards State jurisdictions.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand has said that marriage is for the states on multiple occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AvjC6DaBdk&index=3&list=PLXe7gIyeaiJ26S3odB5wEsmewjUXHwZ7w

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Brett85]

Rand has said that marriage is for the states on multiple occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AvjC6DaBdk&index=3&list=PLXe7gIyeaiJ26S3odB5wEsmewjUXHwZ7w

Yeah, but apparently he's supposed to talk about the issue every day, according to some people.

[Dogsoldier]

I haven't read the whole thread but a Christian talk show was ripping Rand apart over this today. They were placing calls to his office trying to get an answer and never got in.

Ron Paul was for states rights and I thought Rand was too so he needs to come out and say it.

[Brett85]

What is Rand being ripped apart for? Did he vote against a bill that would preserve the right of the states to define marriage how they want to? Did he come out and say that he now supports gay marriage and thinks that gay marriage is now a Constitutional right? Otherwise, I just don't see what people are "mad" about. They shouldn't expect Republicans to focus on or prioritize the gay marriage issue when there's somewhere around 55-60% support nationally for gay marriage. It just isn't wise politically for Republicans to bring up the issue.

[Dogsoldier]

Maybe they expect him to do something about it?

[Brett85]

Maybe they expect him to do something about it?

What can he do? The issue is going to be decided by the Supreme Court. He isn't a member of the Supreme Court.

[Dogsoldier]

I know but there are a lot of religious people out there who vote. He should say something....The government shouldn't be involved at all....

[Brett85]

The government shouldn't be involved at all....

Uh, that would just make them even more mad if Rand said that. They're mad at Rand for not being more vocal about marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman at the state level.

Rand is better off just keeping quiet on the issue and saying nothing.

[Dogsoldier]

Well he will have to back up his stance that its a states rights issue but he can also throw in that the government shouldn't be involved at all.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Steve Deace usually gives good insight, but keep in mind two things. He backed Newt Gingrich of all people in the primary in 2012. And when republicans delve into social issues they get CRUSHED in the general election against the democrat, who then gets to comes across as more in-touch with the times and they also get to appear as advocates of liberty and freedom to the ignorant masses. When republicans speak on social issues its clunky as hell and it turns off huge swaths of the electorate. It's a good way to lose by 400 electoral votes.

[GunnyFreedom]

I know but there are a lot of religious people out there who vote. He should say something....The government shouldn't be involved at all....


Uh, that would just make them even more mad if Rand said that. They're mad at Rand for not being more vocal about marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman at the state level.

Rand is better off just keeping quiet on the issue and saying nothing.

That's true. In the modern-day 501(c)3 American government church, churchgoers adamantly oppose any effort to stop treating government as though it were more powerful than God. It doesn't actually matter that GOD is on the side of the people trying to end the government regulation of God; it doesn't matter that GOD is opposed to churches that worship the government more than God Himself; Mainstream churchianity clearly believes that 'government is our god,' and any attempt to undo that arrangement will be met with hostility that has obtained a religious fervor.

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

The truth is Rand Paul probably supports gay marriage, like about 90% of every other politician who secretly supports gay marriage while publicly opposing it. Most of these politician don't believe in god, and Rand is probably an atheist as well. It's all just an act. Watch the House of Cards with Kevin Spacey who is a Democrat politician who speaks at a church and gives a passionate speak about god and than the next minute when everyone is gone he says he doesn't believe in god.

He's the position Rand should take. No state, be it federal or state should be involved in marriage business and marriage should be privatized for everyone. That includes things like adoption rights, taxation, etc.

[Brett85]

The truth is Rand Paul probably supports gay marriage, like about 90% of every other politician who secretly supports gay marriage while publicly opposing it. Most of these politician don't believe in god, and Rand is probably an atheist as well. It's all just an act. Watch the House of Cards with Kevin Spacey who is a Democrat politician who speaks at a church and gives a passionate speak about god and than the next minute when everyone is gone he says he doesn't believe in god.

He's the position Rand should take. No state, be it federal or state should be involved in marriage business and marriage should be privatized for everyone. That includes things like adoption rights, taxation, etc.

I highly doubt if Rand supports gay marriage, as gay marriage is a big government position, and Rand is in favor of limited government. But I imagine that Rand secretly wants to get the government out of marriage entirely.

[eduardo89]

The truth is Rand Paul probably supports gay marriage

I can assure that is not the case.


Most of these politician don't believe in god, and Rand is probably an atheist as well.

lol, what a joke.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand is probably an atheist as well.

Actually he worships the Aqua Buddha.

[tsai3904]

Rand responds:


I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government. It is illegitimate for the federal courts to intrude here.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/04/rand-paul-says-he-believes-in-the

[RandallFan]

Jack Conway, Kentucky’s attorney general, said Tuesday that if he appealed the recent ruling, he would be forced to defend discrimination. ”That I will not do,” he said in a statement. “As Attorney General of Kentucky, I must draw the line when it comes to discrimination.”
Beshear promptly announced that his office would continue the appeal, the Associated Press reports, saying there would be “legal chaos” if the courts don’t delay any changes until after an appeal.


http://nation.time.com/2014/03/04/kentuck-gay-marriage-steve-beshear-jack-conway/