Posted on 06/26/2013 5:41:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here's The latest in the continuing saga of Rand on the Skywire, trying to inch along the tightrope between libertarians and conservatives towards the GOP nomination on the other side.
Love him or hate him, the 2016 debates will be roughly 8,000 percent more interesting with him onstage than they would be otherwise.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”
“As a country we can agree to disagree,” Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. “As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.”…
Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called “someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion.” He said Kennedy “tried to strike a balance.”
Many social conservatives won’t be happy to hear him talking about leaving things to the states, and they really won’t be happy with him waving off the culture war, but they were never Paul’s target constituency in the first place. If you’re a young, bridge-building, aspiring GOP nominee, the politic answer here is obvious: Support traditional marriage at the state level and oppose any lawmaking on the subject at the federal level. Be a socially conservative small-government federalist and hope that both social cons and moderate/libertarians each cut you enough of a break on your middle-ground position that the Skywire doesn’t sway too much. That’s the smart play for someone in Rand’s position (at least until he makes it to the general, when any misgivings about gay marriage at the state level will begin magically to melt away). Just one question: Does he support state traditional marriage laws at the state level? I honestly can’t tell. This morning he told Glenn Beck this:
“I think traditional marriage laws are now affirmed in 34 states,” the Kentucky Republican said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning, calling it the “good side of the ruling.”
So he does support them. But wait — a few months ago, he said this:
Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
As I said at the time, that’s the sort of thing you often hear from libertarians who want the government, and not just the federal government, out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think Rand could get away with that position in a GOP primary, which is why I assume he’s still nominally in favor of state marriage laws. Whether he’d have an Obama-esque “evolution” in support of liberalizing those laws to include gays once safely elected, though, I leave to you to decide.
Via Noah Rothman, here he is with Beck having a not-especially-libertarian exchange about whether legalizing gay marriage necessarily means legalizing polygamy. Beck’s more concerned about that than Paul is — Rand clarified what he said here about non-humans later in the day, in fact — but he does seem to see some hazy role for government in legislating morality. Some of his dad’s fans won’t like that, but plenty of mainstream conservatives will.
Update: A “wacko bird” divergence:
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8:
Today’s Supreme Court decisions on marriage are a regrettable overreach against the will of the people as expressed through large, bipartisan majorities in Congress and directly through referendum in California – a markedly blue state.
Nothing in the Constitution compelled this result, and, once again, the Court has chosen to substitute its own views of public policy for the democratically expressed will of the voters.
The family is the fundamental building block of society, and I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.
Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.
I would agree...
I get the bad feeling Rand Paul is going to go full blown Rubio on some issue or another before 2016. I don’t see that happening to Ted Cruz.
What Joe said.
Reflects my views precisely. IF they leave this pretty much to the states I have no problem. Let the dykes and faggots gravitate to California and Massachussetts and other such locales and leave the other states less infected. Win. Win.
If California wants to let people marry their cocker spaniels, more power to them. Maybe when enough homosexuals and animal lovers have migrated there, it will fall into the ocean from the weight of them.
We can always hope, anyway.
Hank
America is not going to have a situation where some families are ghettoized into half the states, and their marriage and family not recognized in others, or when they enlist, or work for the federal government.
People with strong religious convictions have known this for a very long time.
Libertarians are just liberals who don’t want to pay.
Actually they are, but not when it creates gay marriage for all of America or frankly, anywhere in America.
America was founded by people dedicated against such a thing, and they would never have tolerated it, or created the legal argument for it to become the law of the land.
The Federal government should spend their time doing what they are Constitutionally mandated to do and leave the rest to the States. Instead, they don't secure the border and talk about "amnesty", for example, and when the states step in to fill the gap, the Feds shut that down, too.
I didn't read anything in my copy of the US Constitution saying the Government could place its blessing on a twisted parody of the Sacrament of Marriage.
It would sure cut down on the necessary number of cataclysms...
Bachmann, Cruz and West are the only three I trust. Pretty much.
That's part of it. I would say they are conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues and isolationist on foreign policy. A key point is they are rules-based and fairly inflexible. Hard coded suckers. Cobol.
What about Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions?
RE: isolationist on foreign policy.
Has anybody asked Rand or Ron Paul whether they would have invaded the Taliban controlled Afghanistan after we knew that they were giving sanctuary to Osama Bin Ladin?
Also, what would they have done after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?
I could get on board with Palin in 2015, but not Rand Paul..
yeah. I Like Mike lee and my senator Jerry Moran. Just was picking my top three. Sessions is not bad on immigration, but I have heard people are upset with some of his other stances. Again I have not studied it enough. But I do like Sessions from what I have been hearing.
“Has anybody asked Rand or Ron Paul whether they would have invaded the Taliban controlled Afghanistan after we knew that they were giving sanctuary to Osama Bin Ladin?”
Even if he said no, I doubt that would work against him politically. Most people recognize that Afghanistan’s always going to be a smoldering craphole. Pouring money into bombing and rebuilding it isn’t going to change it.
We might have killed Bin Ladin sooner had we not gone into Afghanistan. Or we might never have gotten him. Or maybe he was in Pakistan all along.
But I don’t think Afghanistan is any better, or worse, after all we’ve done there.
Government or controlling legal authority has always been involved in marriage, it has to be. As far as licenses, I wonder why no one thought of that during the days of Jefferson and Washington?
Jefferson was even involved in divorce law.
I predict an onslaught to sue churches out of existence because they refuse to hold gay marriage ceremonies. That is the true intent of the law.
“..He seems to shift a lot to suit the audience.”
Yes, he does.
Also, Rand Paul received a 33% rating from Planned Parenthood:
“KY U.S. Senate Jr Rand Paul Republican 33”
snip http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1578/rating/6093
All my heroes receive ZERO percent from Planned Parenthood.
Rand Paul is okay on some issues, but not the conservative social issues. He is like his father. But my issue often is with libertarianism, as I once felt I was one. But I began to see that other than small government, they were very much like socialists on most other issues. I distanced myself from them. Our Constitution was written with heavy influence from the Bible. You cannot read a divulgence into sin and corruption into the founders’ intentions. It’s not there. They intended it for a Christian people who held to their belief in God as creator, however much they may fall into sin. We have taken God out of everything, and cannot even mention His name unless profaning it. The Pauls try to find a middle ground by saying they believe in traditional marriage...and I’m sure they do. However, one must fight the good fight, not change your own principles to get along with others. What they are effectively saying is that our next generations are NOT worth fighting for, let them work it out themselves...I don’t want to get my own hands dirty. Those who try to be the peacemakers in social issues really might as well join the other side, as they are no good to the rest of us. Ted Cruz, on the other hand is a solid conservative and stands solidly with people of faith in fighting for faith issues. These ARE important. I agree with Mark Levin and Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and the many of us who ARE concerned for the immoral, corrupt way our country is going. As Billy Graham stated decades ago, God must judge America or He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. We are abandoning our western allies for the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama states that we’ll be Muslim by 2016. Please, dear God, remove this whole administration in some way BEFORE that happens! PLEASE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.