Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul: On Gay Marriage GOP Needs to ‘Agree to Disagree’ [Jun 26, 2013]
ABC News ^ | Jun 26, 2013 2:27pm | Jeff Zeleny

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; longknivesareout; losertarianism; rand; randisathreat; randpaul; romneyagenda; romneymarriage

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

 

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

 

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

 


1 posted on 04/23/2014 7:10:52 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Breaking news?


2 posted on 04/23/2014 7:12:01 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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.


3 posted on 04/23/2014 7:12:15 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I don’t agree


4 posted on 04/23/2014 7:13:11 PM PDT by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

His hair piece is affecting his brain.


5 posted on 04/23/2014 7:15:26 PM PDT by bramps (Go West America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Only if “we” are the establishment RINOs.


6 posted on 04/23/2014 7:16:18 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

No.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)


7 posted on 04/23/2014 7:18:56 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Breaking news?

has his position changed or is he still pushing holding firm on putting social issues on the back burner?

If not, then it will be breaking news right up and until the GOP POTUS nominee is elected.
8 posted on 04/23/2014 7:19:29 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Palin, Cruz, or LOSE. The Paulista is a DemocRat. Surprise, surprise.


9 posted on 04/23/2014 7:20:58 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Paul is just as bad as his 2014 Senate candidate, Mitch McTerrible.


10 posted on 04/23/2014 7:22:46 PM PDT by Theodore R. (It was inevitable: Texans will always be for Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
RE :”If not, then it will be breaking news right up and until the GOP POTUS nominee is elected.”

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.

11 posted on 04/23/2014 7:23:21 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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.


12 posted on 04/23/2014 7:23:21 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: bramps

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.


14 posted on 04/23/2014 7:24:51 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; KingOfVagabonds; Berlin_Freeper; UnRuley1; mlizzy; mc5cents; RichInOC; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

15 posted on 04/23/2014 7:25:40 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/cruz-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/


16 posted on 04/23/2014 7:36:37 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

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.


17 posted on 04/23/2014 7:37:06 PM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis
I don’t agree

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.

18 posted on 04/23/2014 7:41:45 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bramps
"His hair piece is affecting his brain."

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.)

19 posted on 04/23/2014 7:54:14 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ("Our hearts are restless, Lord, until they rest in Thee." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

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 Obama’s 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.””


20 posted on 04/23/2014 7:54:49 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

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?


21 posted on 04/23/2014 8:00:09 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Officially off my list of Republicans I’d like to see nominated.

Life and marriage are non-negotiable!~


22 posted on 04/23/2014 8:03:36 PM PDT by JSDude1 (Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Is this article a joke.


23 posted on 04/23/2014 8:06:02 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
While there's some things I like about Paul, generally I think his policies unsuitable for my vote.

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.

24 posted on 04/23/2014 8:36:01 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
Cruz seems to agree. He introduced legislation that recognizes any definition of marriage that the states decide to pass:

Your problem is that Rand Paul, and not Ted Cruz, tries to have his cake and eat it too.

He is straddling the line, badly I might add, between Libertarianism and Conservatism, trying to please both camps and failing badly.

HIs Amnesty plan, his desire to put the social issues on the back burner, his support of McConnell over Bevin all mark him as a member of the GOP-E, and not the Tea-Party.
25 posted on 04/23/2014 8:36:03 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; BarnacleCenturion
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?


Well BC, you're silence on this questions that Ansel has raised is deafening.
26 posted on 04/23/2014 8:37:27 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
"If you believe in the Constitution as written, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. "

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.

27 posted on 04/23/2014 8:42:23 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
No, apparently, the states CANNOT decide. As we've seen with Federal judges who overturn state constitutions.

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.

28 posted on 04/23/2014 11:11:34 PM PDT by boop (I just wanted a President. But I got a rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

A lot of Paulistas on the forum. All hat, no cattle.


29 posted on 04/23/2014 11:33:57 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Which state decides marriage law for areas of federal jurisdiction, such as the military, in federal employment and immigration law?


30 posted on 04/23/2014 11:55:00 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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.


31 posted on 04/24/2014 12:09:41 AM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

OK, Rand... we get it.. you don’t want the conservative vote if you running 2016. That message is loud and clear!


32 posted on 04/24/2014 2:46:38 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

“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.


33 posted on 04/24/2014 3:20:28 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; ansel12

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.


34 posted on 04/24/2014 6:07:31 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion; SoConPubbie

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.””


You keep smearing Cruz for fighting to get back as much as we can from the federal government on marriage, while defending Paul, who has helped the gay marriage at the federal government level efforts.

“”Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz launched the beginning of another precarious battle – an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s 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 year’s 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.””


35 posted on 04/24/2014 12:21:23 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson