This where Rand Paul is destructine and not a conservative. Obviously he doesn’t believe in the natural law as our founders did. Why o why has the natural law changed in some way? I’m not sure you can call yourself a Christian and support the destruction of society and the family.
so you’re all for government intervention as long as you agree with what they are intervening. Got it.
I’ve had this argument for as long as I can remember. If the tax system were flat then the government wouldn’t need to care who is married. It should rightfully be a decision of the Church or other institutions to decide what marriage is and who can be married. I’m sure the true believers don’t accept gay “marriage” as a part of a perfect plan of the almighty. Support for gay “marriage” in the context of religious institutions would necessarily plummet.
hope he;s not turing into his nut case dad and giving the left presents.
I hate it when these so called lefty arguments are used to back left wing agendas and then they call themselves conservatives, they are not they;re libertarians who want drugs legal, any kind of marriage nad live a life of anarchy and od what ever they want
roblem si that someone has to decide on wo gets what when the marriage has failed and that is Govt and the church is hardly going to do that are they, so that liberal communist argument of Govt out of it is pathetic IMHO
If "conservative" is defined as the strict adherence to the constitution, then Paul is conservative. If you define it as adhering to traditional societal norms, he still is. But if you define it as state enforcement of societal norms not enumerated in the constitution, then he's not conservative.
The bill of rights didn't enumerate and codify all of the natural laws for a specific reason - it would be tantamount to granting them by government, not given from God. In order to preserve them, the most important aspect of protecting them is to bar the federal government from regulating them. The states through the 10th amendment may have a right to regulate morality, but not the fed. We can see the natural progression of statism is to take over every aspect of living - from the union of adults, to raising a family, and eventual death.
I'm not arguing that SSM should be allowed, but this leviathan of a federal government is like Skynet with Terminators - it won't stop until everyone is under complete subjugation. We have $150+ TRILLION in debt and unfunded liabilities. If we don't stand up for constitutional limits on legislation, we have no right to complain about SCOTUS decisions like Roe v Wade. There are far better ways to address morality then social engineering by big brother.