The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
Posted on 08/12/2014 6:47:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Speaking at a breakfast in Iowa, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said last week he supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“I am in favor of traditional marriage, and I think that’s been the foundation for civilization for thousands of years,” he said in response to a question about whether he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage.
But while he said he favored the “concept,” he added he would oppose a federal amendment, because he does not believe the federal government should have a role in defining marriage. “I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue,” he said, acknowledging his views “may not please everybody.”
Paul had previously said that marriage was not a defining Republican issue, and members of the party could “agree to disagree” on the matter.
The junior senator from Kentucky, who is expected to formally enter the 2016 Republican presidential race after the midterm elections, also took the opportunity to throw cold water on Democratic claims that the GOP wants to outlaw contraception.
“I haven’t heard any Republican politician who” wants to “ban birth control,” he said.
“They concocted this whole thing in some Madison Avenue advertising agency that there’s a war on women,” he said, adding his stock joke, “If there was, women won.”
His remarks were a departure from his usual campaign fodder – an eclectic mix of libertarian-leaning issues including reducing the size and scope of the U.S. government, scaling back intervention abroad, restoring felon voting rights and reducing sentences for some drug convictions.
CNN reports that the Democratic National Committee cited Senator Paul's sponsorship of the “Life at Conception Act,” a bill that would endow all unborn children with rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as proof of his anti-contraception stance.
Neither the bill Sen. Paul supports nor the Personhood initiatives often associated with it would ban any device that merely prevents the conception of a child, nor do they mention birth control.
In other words, he wants to be on record opposing same-sex "marriage" while refusing to stop it.
Writhe and twist, Rand. Find the way the wind is blowing today.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Wow. What a statement. Politicians are such geniuses.
So if elected, I wouldn't expect him to support marriage, just as I don't expect the Democrats to support Holy Matrimony.
To destroy society, destroy the family.
To destroy the family, destroy marriage....
To destroy marriage, either make it unnecessary or.....re-define it. Doing BOTH does it best.
Communists knew this and planned it in the ‘40’s......or earlier......
Exactly.
I will give Paul credit for favoring a Constitutional Amendment recognizing life begins at conception. But how in the world can he be so stupid as to oppose other conservative fundamentals.
(Social) Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Rand Paul is not my favorite by any means, but he is correct in that marriage should be an issue left to the states per the Tenth Amendment, and the best thing for the Feds would be to drop the whole issue. Since the Federal courts won’t drop the issue, however, that puts supporters of traditional marriage between a rock and a hard place: if we stick to our Constitutional principles the left will use the federal courts to force same-sex marriage down everyone’s throats; if we push for a Constitutional amendment we will get nowhere because you won’t get 2/3s of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along. In short, you can’t win a battle against an opponent who won’t play by the rules, but if the purpose of the battle is to support the rules, you will lose the battle by breaking the rules.
Read it more carefully, he DOES NOT support an amendment, he supports an act that the court can overturn.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
That won't work and the left knows it.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause essentially makes it impossible to keep it a state-by-state issue. The courts would be forced to rule that a marriage that is valid in one state is also valid in another.
I'm sorry, but I used an example of where Paul is right (favoring a Constitutional Amendment recognizing life begins at conception) to contrast the point where he is wrong (not favoring Fedgov endorsement of marriage).
Actually, that's not the whole story. The 10th Amendment says that marriage should be left to the people.
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The people have spoken on numerous occasions. They voted in favor of traditional marriage only to have that unconstitutionally overthrown by judges.
Why is this an issue for the people and not for the states? Because the people brought it to a referendum vote by a process of petition and referendum, and the first amendment says petition is a 'right of the people'.
Don’t let your opponent define the battlefield. Don’t let the left define terms. They have redefined marriage and now make claims of inequality. Marriage has always been man and woman or perhaps man and women. The word has a meaning and it is being applied equally. The left alters the meaning to be any grouping of persons and then claims any opposition to this redefinition is unequal application.
Don’t let the left define terms.
Ceding language is defeat without combat.
My feelings exactly!! NO RAND PAUL. NO NO NO NO!!!
and I am sure he means it as much as Lamar Alexander opposed amnesty
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.