Skip to comments.Rand Paul: On Gay Marriage GOP Needs to ‘Agree to Disagree’ [Jun 26, 2013]
Posted on 04/23/2014 7:10:52 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
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.”
The comments from Paul, a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016, highlight how the party’s field could divide over gay marriage. Many Republicans have been unusually muted in their reactions to the Supreme Court rulings today.
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
How come whenever the libs take over, they do everything they want by any means necessary no matter how radical.
When we take over, its milquetoast.
I don’t agree
His hair piece is affecting his brain.
Only if “we” are the establishment RINOs.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
Palin, Cruz, or LOSE. The Paulista is a DemocRat. Surprise, surprise.
Paul is just as bad as his 2014 Senate candidate, Mitch McTerrible.
I don't see it in the Breaking News sidebar.
I did see Maddow tonight attributed the unearthing of his past Reagan comment (posted here a few hours ago) to a David Corn's investigation.
Does Paul know the ultimate opponents are the Democrats? S o far all I’m seeing is the thrust of his campaign is against Republicans.
I had never known about that speculation until now, I also didn’t know that he is so short.
If that is true about his wearing a wig, that could be interesting.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Cruz seems to agree. He introduced legislation that recognizes any definition of marriage that the states decide to pass:
Cruz, Lee introduce State Marriage Defense Act
Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah introduced the “State Marriage Defense Act” on Wednesday. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) introduced similar legislation in the House in early January. If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states
If you believe in the Constitution as written, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment applies here. Regulating marriage is not an enumerated power of the Federal government. Rules and regulations governing marriage are the responsibility of the states and the people. Whether or not you agree or disagree with homosexual marriage, Paul is correct in his reading of the Constitution.
There appears to be a misprint in the first lie of the article Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., should read Sen. Rand Paul, Libertarian-Ky.
Perhaps if he also gets a pair of eyebrow wiglets (like his dad), he will gain more traction with his "raise the white flag" campaign. (But probably not.)
In typical contrast between a conservative and a libertarian, Paul is trying to find ways to make gay marriage permanent, and Ted Cruz is seeking ways to oppose it and wound it, in the hopes of defeating it.
After he, Palin, and conservatives lost on DOMA, which Rand was on Obamas pro-gay marriage side on, Cruz came up quickly with legislation to continue the fight.
Teabagger Senators Cruz & Lee Introduce Bill To Ban Feds From Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Teabagistan) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Teabagistan) today jointly introduced a bill that limits the federal government to only recognizing same-sex marriages that are conducted legally in the state where the married couple resides. Last month a similar House bill, written by the Family Research Council, was introduced by Rep. Randy Weber.
Paul Opposed DOMA, Cruz fought for it, and is now trying to restore much of it.
You are lying about Cruz, while Paul is coming out in support of gay marriage and calling on conservatives to stop fighting it and the GOP to drop social issues.
Cruz is doing the OPPOSITE, he is trying to get back as much DOMA as we can, Paul opposed DOMA.
Let me ask, do YOU support DOMA? Do you oppose Cruz’s bill, the new DOMA?
Officially off my list of Republicans I’d like to see nominated.
Life and marriage are non-negotiable!~
Is this article a joke.
But I'm pretty sure he's going to appeal strongly to the "mild" GOP...you know, you're aunt Betty?
And the young kids.
I'm glad he's expanding the party, but please don't vote for him unless he wins the nomination.
You are correct and that's why DOMA is not only trash law, but a diversion for Marriage proponents.
There's only one legal path to a national Marriage definition: Constitutional Amendment.
Otherwise, the states decide.
Now, don't be surprised if the SCOTUS decides that any state which certifies Marriage MUST also certify homo marriage, and perhaps Polygamy. But I don't believe they will ever be able to compel a Church to "marry" homos.
Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, New Jersey, and the crown jewel, California.
Rand Paul must be in a coma if he's never heard of these "state's rights" cases.
A lot of Paulistas on the forum. All hat, no cattle.
Which state decides marriage law for areas of federal jurisdiction, such as the military, in federal employment and immigration law?
He’s become as Wishy Washy as Charlie Brown. Sometimes tough and absolute stands must be taken as compromise only leads to total destruction. History shows that is the case. A nation compromising and embracing Homosexual marriage is a doomed nation. It is one act so sick we must stand against for our nations very survival. To do less brings GOD’s judgment.
OK, Rand... we get it.. you don’t want the conservative vote if you running 2016. That message is loud and clear!
“But I don’t believe they will ever be able to compel a Church to “marry” homos.”
I suspect most of the mainline Protestant Churches in the US and Europe will agree to conduct single sex marriages within 5 years. In Western countries there seems to be a large minority of Roman Catholic priests who also support single sex marriage. Give the Catholic Church two consecutive progressive popes and it may fall in line.
What will churches do if the federal government orders them to conduct single sex marriages and the US Supreme Court with a 5-4 or 6-3 progressive majority upholds the government saying equal protection triumphs religious liberty? Over the past 50 years the Supremes have been walking down the road of giving some rights supremacy over other rights. The Kelo decision essentially allows takings of private property for private purposes (clearly unconstitutional). The Obamacare ruling allows government to compel consumers to purchase items they do not want. The interstate commerce clause has been twisted to permit the government to regulate any economic transaction. Roe v. Wade permits the killing of infants in the womb. It is not hard to imagine a progressive Supreme Court ordering churches to sanctify single sex marriage, or polygamy, or bigamy, or whatever the progressive cause of the day.
Actually the only consideration that might stop a progressive Supreme Court from upholding government action requiring churches to conduct single sex marriage is opposition from Islamists.
Well, DOMA was enacted by Bill Clinton and didn’t do anything to stop the spread of gay marriage in the states. It was a complete failure and actually forced many states to choose between gay marriage and traditional marriage. Those who chose traditional marriage are having the decision reversed by the federal courts so the end result has been a huge win for gay marriage everywhere. Do you disagree?
I’m not sure where Paul and Cruz stand on DOMA. DOMA has become irrelevant now. The federal government should not have enacted legislation regulating marriage. Because it did, we are where we are today. Just look at the timeline.
What a convoluted and dishonest dump of BS. You even mentioned Clinton, DOMA had veto proof majorities in both houses, he didn’t have any choice but to sign it.
Clinton, Rand Paul Barack Obama all opposed DOMA, Cruz and Palin supported it. Your side the left+/libertarians won and now we have larger government and full marriage benefits for gay hookups.
We can assume you oppose DOMA and efforts to preserve marriage and the positive effects of DOMA that the left and libertarians opposed and wanted to defeat.
“”DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits.””
Now we have gay marriage at the federal level Paul opposed DOMA, a position which gave federal benefits to homosexuals in the military in federal government, and in immigration, wasting billions and giving the left the single biggest hammer to impose gay marriage on individual states. Nothing is more powerful in changing public perception and feelings about “gay marriage” than having it legal at the federal level and their GIs and employees scattered throughout every state.
You then pretend you don’t know how Cruz and Paul come down on DOMA despite all of our posts to you using those facts, and you even bring up the nonsense of how the Continental Congress and the Congresses of the 1780s and 1790s and Founding fathers are to blame because they had to have marriage law at the federal level.
“”Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors’ benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers , laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.””
“”Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz launched the beginning of another precarious battle an attempt to reverse the Supreme Courts landmark decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Cruz and Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee introduced a bill on Wednesday to amend chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, with regard to the definition of marriage and spouse for Federal purposes.
If passed, the bill would defer to state definitions of marriage for federal protections and spousal benefits, essentially undoing the effects of last years Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Windsor. That decision overturned a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing the U.S. government to begin recognizing same-sex nuptials.””