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

[Brett85]

I'm just wondering why Rand hasn't issued any statement on the same sex marriage ruling. He's running for President and must realize that he can't just run and hide on controversial issues. He's going to get asked about it and will eventually have to give his position and what should happen going forward. Whatever his position is, he needs to make it clear. No one who's running for President can just be silent on major issues. That's not going to work. IMO he should release a statement talking about how he will pledge to preserve religious liberty and endorses laws in states like Oklahoma and Alabama that would get the government out of marriage. That would be the pro liberty position. It's not pro liberty to be silent on controversial issues and not take a stand.

[Brett85]

So Rand's statement on the Confederate flag gets 21 pages worth of comments, and this gets zero comments so far. I guess defending the Confederacy is more important than whatever stance you take on this issue.

[Massachusetts]

Because Rand has already gotten in trouble making comments too soon before all the facts/consequences/fallout are out in the public sphere? Why does Rand need to make a bold comment on every issue while Hillary picks and chooses her interviews?

[CPUd]

Pretty sure he will give a version of what he has always said about it. While you wait for him to respond, go look at the talk he did with David Axelrod in Chicago.

[Brett85]

Because Rand has already gotten in trouble making comments too soon before all the facts/consequences/fallout are out in the public sphere? Why does Rand need to make a bold comment on every issue while Hillary picks and chooses her interviews?

I think he needs to comment on this because every other announced Republican candidate has already commented on it. It makes him look bad to just be silent on it.

[Wilf]

I think he needs to comment on this because every other announced Republican candidate has already commented on it. It makes him look bad to just be silent on it.

and he did the same thing to the confederation flag issuse

[JohnCifelli1]

Rand is walking a fine line. Any Republican who is taking a hard line critical stance on this topic is fuked in the General. The majority in America approve of gay marriage. There is no realistic legal mechanism to prohibit it. Any Republican candidate is going to need soft Dems and I's to win. That means not alienating over half the population.

[ghengisconrad]

Frankly its a bit of a minefield for him. He's smart to stay quiet. The nuance of a libertarian position on this issue can be hairy.

Even his father would have said it should be a state's rights issue right? well this turns out to be kind of the opposite of that, doesn't it; with the supreme court over-ruling state decisions. And if he comes flat out simply "pro gay" on all fronts, principles be damned; then he'll offend many of the religious crowd.

[mit26chell]

He probably realizes it's a way to lose a general election if he comes out strongly against it like the others have. The country is not going to elect someone who believes people shouldn't have equal access to civil marriage just because they are LGBT.

[RonPaulMall]

Frankly its a bit of a minefield for him. He's smart to stay quiet. The nuance of a libertarian position on this issue can be hairy.

Even his father would have said it should be a state's rights issue right? well this turns out to be kind of the opposite of that, doesn't it; with the supreme court over-ruling state decisions. And if he comes flat out simply "pro gay" on all fronts, principles be damned; then he'll offend many of the religious crowd.

Not much of a minefield at all. He can just say what he always says- that the government has no business in the institution of marriage. Though considering the way he handled the Confederate Flag issue, maybe it is best that he just keeps his mouth shut.

[Mr.NoSmile]

So Rand's statement on the Confederate flag gets 21 pages worth of comments, and this gets zero comments so far. I guess defending the Confederacy is more important than whatever stance you take on this issue.

Mate, you waited 20 minutes. Give it time and be patient- people have other stuff to do. And Paul, like any GOP candidate going forward, walks a tight rope between the traditional marriage crowd and those who embrace this ruling with open arms. Come against it and you lose those who embrace it, as if you ever had them. Come in favor of it, and there goes the slowly dwindling and not as vocal evangelical crowd. Plus, he's discussed marriage already. Not in the context of this ruling, but he has addressed it.

[Krugminator2]

It looks like he was playing Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill yesterday with California donors. I am guessing he didn't want say something that would piss them off. Gay marriage should be legal but using the court to force that on states is the wrong. So if he says the "right" thing, he can potentially tick off evangelicals and the social liberals he has been winning in the polls.

[squirl22]

maybe he wants to read the decision before commenting.

[acptulsa]

I'm just wondering why Rand hasn't issued any statement on the same sex marriage ruling. He's running for President and must realize that he can't just run and hide on controversial issues.

Why should the man jump like a marionette every time the MSM tries to yank our chains?

If I had my way, he'd ignore every MSM-generated $#@! storm and remember always the immortal words of Slick Willie Clinton: 'It's the economy, stupid.'

[LawnWake]

He (hopefully) has a team of professional communications and marketing advisors (that's what running a political campaign basically is, right?) who are trying to figure out the best balance between appealing to social conservatives, and social liberals.

Other than the ruling being unconstitutional, I think the best course of action would be to recognize that: nothing has changed in terms of the government defining something it has no place of defining. It should have never been a state institution in the first place. I've posted a long post about this on my Facebook, and everyone from Chomskyan libertarian socialists, to centrists have agreed with my "get the government out of defining voluntary associations" stance. So it might be a popular one among people of all ideologies (granted, I did phrase it from a perspective of what people perceive as gay rights; highlighting that now the state discriminates against polygamous people).

The way I see it, marriage is a word, that carries different meanings depending on the person. It clearly means something different to a secular homosexual than to a devout christian (I am by no means trying to diminish what it means to a christian, I know it's more than a word to them. But within the sphere of society, it really is). But neither has to convince the other through the state of being 'right' and can agree to disagree.

[parke]

I'm just wondering why Rand hasn't issued any statement on the same sex marriage ruling. He's running for President and must realize that he can't just run and hide on controversial issues. He's going to get asked about it and will eventually have to give his position and what should happen going forward. Whatever his position is, he needs to make it clear. No one who's running for President can just be silent on major issues. That's not going to work. IMO he should release a statement talking about how he will pledge to preserve religious liberty and endorses laws in states like Oklahoma and Alabama that would get the government out of marriage. That would be the pro liberty position. It's not pro liberty to be silent on controversial issues and not take a stand.

My guess is that he will wait and respond on a Sunday show. Smart move if so..

[William Tell]

Because Rand has already gotten in trouble making comments too soon before all the facts/consequences/fallout are out in the public sphere? Why does Rand need to make a bold comment on every issue while Hillary picks and chooses her interviews?

^This.

[William Tell]

So Rand's statement on the Confederate flag gets 21 pages worth of comments, and this gets zero comments so far. I guess defending the Confederacy is more important than whatever stance you take on this issue.

As I said in that thread, it would have been better if he didn't have to say anything. All he did was piss southerners off. I bet 80% of people here wish he had kept his mouth shut on that.

I think he needs to comment on this because every other announced Republican candidate has already commented on it. It makes him look bad to just be silent on it.

He always responds to questions when interviewed, you only 'release a statement' if you want to lead on an issue. Marriage is a losing issue for Rand, since he has generally treated it as a state issue, and now SCOTUS is falsely saying it isn't. If he keeps saying it's a a state issue, that will be taken as being strongly social conservative. Which is fine by me, but he would probably see as a distraction.

[Vanguard101]

Because he's smart to stay quiet?

[acptulsa]

Because he's smart to stay quiet?

Why has Rand not gone down in the New York City subway and touched the third rail?

Because he's smart.

[Brett85]

Rand is walking a fine line. Any Republican who is taking a hard line critical stance on this topic is fuked in the General. The majority in America approve of gay marriage. There is no realistic legal mechanism to prohibit it. Any Republican candidate is going to need soft Dems and I's to win. That means not alienating over half the population.

Why not at least take the actual pro liberty position of getting the government out of marriage?

[Brett85]

Because he's smart to stay quiet?

Huh? You think that it will somehow be possible for him to stay quiet about it throughout the entire primary? You think he won't be asked any questions about it? If not, then what's the point of being quiet about it now?

[acptulsa]

Huh? You think that it will somehow be possible for him to stay quiet about it throughout the entire primary? You think he won't be asked any questions about it? If not, then what's the point of being quiet about it now?

Where's the percentage in trying to be heard above the blather? What's the point? Why? We keep asking, and all you can say is, 'He'll have to sooner or later.'

Let everyone butt heads about it for a while, and then when you have to speak and you can actually be heard, people might actually be ready to consider an intelligent comment on the subject.

[Warlord]

Huh? You think that it will somehow be possible for him to stay quiet about it throughout the entire primary? You think he won't be asked any questions about it? If not, then what's the point of being quiet about it now?

Rand doesn't have to release a statement on every issue of the day. I'm sure he will get asked about it at some point in an interview. You need to be more patient.

[William Tell]

Where's the percentage in trying to be heard above the blather? What's the point? Why? We keep asking, and all you can say is, 'He'll have to sooner or later.'

Let everyone but heads about it for a while, and then when you have to speak and you can actually be heard, people might actually be ready to consider an intelligent comment on the subject.

Brett wants something to argue about though, I think he's bored.

[Brett85]

Where's the percentage in trying to be heard above the blather? What's the point? Why? We keep asking, and all you can say is, 'He'll have to sooner or later.'

Let everyone but heads about it for a while, and then when you have to speak and you can actually be heard, people might actually be ready to consider an intelligent comment on the subject.

The fact that he didn't even issue a statement about the ruling will be used against him by the other candidates. Someone like Cruz will criticize him for hiding and refusing to take a strong stand on the issue. At the very least he should come out strongly in favor of preserving religious liberty. But he hasn't even done yet, and right now I don't see any reason why Christians and socially conservative people are going to trust him. He's on his way to getting crushed in the Republican Primary if he keeps this up.

[Warlord]

The fact that he didn't even issue a statement about the ruling will be used against him by the other candidates. Someone like Cruz will criticize him for hiding and refusing to take a strong stand on the issue. At the very least he should come out strongly in favor of preserving religious liberty. But he hasn't even done yet, and right now I don't see any reason why Christians and socially conservative people are going to trust him. He's on his way to getting crushed in the Republican Primary if he keeps this up.

Like i said im sure he will get asked about it in an interview. be more patient. he;s got better things to do than release statements on every issue of the day.

[GopBlackList]

Huh? You think that it will somehow be possible for him to stay quiet about it throughout the entire primary? You think he won't be asked any questions about it? If not, then what's the point of being quiet about it now?

Like someone had said, he has a team of marketers and communication people that he confers with. If anything, I think this might be a blessing for his campaign because all the other candidates have pretty much soiled themselves in taking an extreme stance against gay marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC is thinking, "you know I think Rand would be an ideal candidate for the modern times for a national campaign".

[Brett85]

Like someone had said, he has a team of marketers and communication people that he confers with. If anything, I think this might be a blessing for his campaign because all the other candidates have pretty much soiled themselves in taking an extreme stance against gay marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC is thinking, "you know I think Rand would be an ideal candidate for the modern times for a national campaign".

Not really. Most of the candidates put out pretty moderate statements. The only ones that didn't were Cruz and Huckabee.

[mit26chell]

Not much of a minefield at all. He can just say what he always says- that the government has no business in the institution of marriage. Though considering the way he handled the Confederate Flag issue, maybe it is best that he just keeps his mouth shut.

That's a great position in theory, but it's not practical or realistic given the current system. Government is already embedded in marriage (civil), so people want to hear real answers / positions, not philosophical positions. Since government is involved, groups of people can't be excluded because they are LGBT.