Skip to comments.Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
Posted on 05/20/2014 7:46:33 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that Republicans should embrace a more tolerant view of those who don't hold conservative positions on social issues.
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues."
Paul's comments harken back somewhat to former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels's (R) call for a "truce" on social issues within the GOP. The comment at the time drew a rebuke from social conservatives.
At that same time, those groups aren't as influential in today's Republican Party, where an increasing number of people now support gay marriage, for instance.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Randy is a charter member of the GOP-wing of the Democrat party. He’s just trying to camouflage it.
When the democrats “agree to disagree,” Rand, come talk to us.
The left wants to pound us into the dust and you want to be nicey nicey. Stop hanging around Marbles In His Mouth Mitch!
I completely agree.
That said, do not advocate for ever more immigration.
America needs JOBS.
It's official. Rand Paul is a slimy, two faced weasel. A democrat in sheep's clothes. For millions and millions of folks the only reason they ever considered joining the GOP is for their so-called support for conservative social values!
This is a tough issue, in my opinion.
It amazes me how this culture has shifted on homosexual marriage.
In 1996, if you go back and check the roll call vote on the Defense of Marriage Act, you would be amazed at the liberals who voted for that law.
Less than 20 years ago, even many liberals were willing to say that marriage was a man and a woman.
Now, we’re supposed to accomodate those who, due to guilt or liberal pressures, now decided that they support homosexual marriage.
We could say the same thing about life and the abortion issue, as I just mentioned about marriage.
Yes, you will potentially get more support, if you water down your message. But then, the conservative message itself across the board will be watered down, won’t it?
If someone is going to run on a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro pot and anti US military platform, I’ll agree not to vote for them.
Agreeing to disagree is the same as acquiescing to them unless you are suggesting we are going to make them front and center in the platform?
No, Paul is in the Libtardian wing of the demoncrap party.
I agree. The invasion of the US is not a "social issue". It's a matter of citizenship and following the law. It's not a social issue to say EVerify should be the law of the land and people in the US illegally should be sent home.
The social issues, along with a whole lot of other issues, should be issues for the states to decide. If Rand Paul presented this as such, I suspect he'd get across-the-spectrum support.
Then you can get smaller, Mr. Paul.
The culture has not shifted. The politicians have. Note that all the “gay marriage” push comes from the top, primarily from activist judges. The most egregious, the Prop 8 debacle, came from an openly-biased judge (gay) who was not qualified to make the ruling.
Any GOP-er that is weak on issues like fag-marriage will NOT get my vote. Romney helped facilliate fag-marriage in his state of Massachusetts. That hugely contributed to the fact that he was the first Republican candidate for any office that did not get my vote. I’ll do the same thing in 2016 in a heartbeat, if the GOP goes the same route.
If you listen to Paul and the other pro-invasion candidates, the illegal infestation is a social issue.
Jobs aren’t coming to an immoral America. This would most likely be one of the curses on the nation.
On this we disagree.
Four states have enacted gay marriage by a vote of the people. Many more have enacted it by votes of the Legislature which were not followed by those legislators being voted out of office.
Yes, many states still resist gay marriage and have it only as a result of judicial decisions. But there is clearly a lot more popular support for gay marriage than there was a few years ago. If you don't see a cultural shift, you're not looking very hard.
Sorry. I don’t care to live out the rest of my days in a Sodom and Gomorrah that just happens to have a free-market economic system.