Rand Paul on gay marriage: 'People ought to be treated fairly'

[Spike]

Cake for everyone....


Washington (CNN)Rand Paul isn't endorsing same-sex marriage, but said Sunday that "people ought to be treated fairly under the law."

The Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week talked about the semantics of marriage equality in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

He said the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriage should be left to the states, and that he believes in "the traditional religious connotation" to marriage -- which religious conservatives believe should be reserved for one man and one woman.

"I also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law," he said

"And you probably could have both," he said. "You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in. And then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another."

The issue could be a key one for Paul -- whose libertarian tendencies put him in stark contrast to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and could attract younger voters who are turned off by the GOP's socially conservative tendencies -- in the 2016 race.

Paul said he's a "leave me alone kind of guy."

"I do believe people ought to be left alone," Paul said. "I don't care who you are or what you do at home or who your friends are or what, you know, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to, what you do in your home is your own business. That's always been who I am."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage/index.html

-----------------------

Setting up that big tent

 

[Ron Burgundy]

He should use my line about gay people should have the same right to lose half their stuff in a divorce as straight people. It's the sort of smart-*** answer Rand would give.

 

[MT~Forged]

He should use my line about gay people should have the same right to lose half their stuff in a divorce as straight people. It's the sort of smart-*** answer Rand would give.

I also agree.

 

[suncitysteel]

Freedom to associate. Freedom to enter into contracts w/one another w/out govt intervention. Let me be and I'll let you be, as long as neither intrudes on the other's rights. Non-aggression principles as they relate to foreign policy.

These Libertarians (or in Rand's case, "conservatarians") have some pretty good ideas. I just wish they'd 1) put forth better (read: electable) candidates and 2) don't harp so much on the damn pot legalization issue.

 

[Vis]

Freedom to associate. Freedom to enter into contracts w/one another w/out govt intervention. Let me be and I'll let you be, as long as neither intrudes on the other's rights. Non-aggression principles as they relate to foreign policy.

These Libertarians (or in Rand's case, "conservatarians") have some pretty good ideas. I just wish they'd 1) put forth better (read: electable) candidates and 2) don't harp so much on the damn pot legalization issue.

Legalize Pot!!!!!!

 

[Yinzerlyn]

"And you probably could have both," he said. "You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in. And then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another."

This is exactly how I feel about this subject.

 

[bmoritz]

I think it's a state's issue, and the federal government should stay out of it and mind it's own damn business. Same with education.

 

[Badcat]

Rand stated the very same position that I have with same sex couples. Tour free to get your freak in, as long as I don't have to bear witness to it. Goes for hetero couples too...

 

[Vis]

Hillary Clinton: Same-Sex Marriage Should Be a 'Constitutional Right'

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hil...rriage-should-be-constitutional-right-n342131


This issue is a loser for the right in the general election. Every state where "defending traditional marriage" still plays is deep red already. The tricky part will be how a candidate gets the primary votes without condemning marriage equality like Cruz has done.

 

[MT~Forged]

Rand stated the very same position that I have with same sex couples. Tour free to get your freak in, as long as I don't have to bear witness to it. Goes for hetero couples too...

Come on, SOME of those Hetero-freak shows are fun to watch.

 

[Coach]

Being Anti Gay marriage doesn't really hurt that much. It could help a little by brining out the base. Gays are maybe 5%-8% of the population. Gays are voting democratic anyway. The issue with Rand is being Anti abortion. That hurts a ton with women. Paul is a gifted speak and very smart, but like I said he's got 2 strikes before his first at bat.

Women appear to be the key for 2016. The Republicans need to be pro women, but point Hillary's past comments that trend toward an angry feminist . It is Hillary agenda to put women in power spots just because they are women. Hillary has a big mouth and angry voice. She has said many stupid things and lacks her husband's charm and charisma to work her way out of scandals or smoke.

I'd like to see the Republican primary races moved up a few months. This way the winner has extra time to raise cash.

 

[bmoritz]

Coach, with all due respect, I think you're buying too much into the liberal lie that all women want abortion. There are a ton of women who are morally opposed to abortion. Just because they are shunned by the femi-Nazis doesn't mean their voices aren't as important. If I were to lose a vote because somebody is okay with murdering babies, I'd be fine with that.

 

[Steeltime]

Hillary Clinton: Same-Sex Marriage Should Be a 'Constitutional Right'

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hil...rriage-should-be-constitutional-right-n342131

This issue is a loser for the right in the general election. Every state where "defending traditional marriage" still plays is deep red already. The tricky part will be how a candidate gets the primary votes without condemning marriage equality like Cruz has done.

Marriage is not an issue where the Federal government has any business dictating policy. When are we going to stop pretending that the Fed was EVER meant to be the solution to normal, everyday societal issues, such as child support, or marriage? Further, once you forfeit the power to the Federal government over personal and societal issues, do not complain to me about the fact that the Fed is now doing the opposite of what you want.

I took this position in 1996, when Congress passed the stupid "defense of marriage act." Congress had no goddam business enacting such a law. Voters are too ignorant to remember that the entity that they now believe should be entrusted with policing and enforcing marriage rights is the same goddam institution that less than a generation ago specifically banned gay marriage.

While the Federal government was enacting laws that banned gay marriage (a clearly unconstitutional exercise of authority), many states were implementing protection of and recognition for gay marriage.

The simple, undeniable truth is that voters have basically zero knowledge of how government works, and the reasons why a fawning love for the all-powerful centralized government is a bad idea. These voters seem to believe that nobody will ever run the Federal government except "their guys," so what could go wrong?

Hey, dumbasses, everything could go wrong. That is the whole idea behind a government of limited powers. The Federal government has no business telling me who can get married to whom - ever.

I live in California. My state has so many @#$%ing problems that it would take weeks for me to list them. One problem we now battle is the fact that our initiative process - adopted to bypass the legislature with direct implementation of law by the voters - is a system where every personal belief and ideological battle is played out via Constitutional amendment. This process has diminished the state Constitution to a "wish list." Based on my own experience in seeing how the initiative process is abused, using the Constitution as a personal "wish list," I have grown to hate the concept of amending the Constitution to bring about some personal preference. Please, please, please, please, please don't do this to the United States Constitution.

Finally, please do not conflate a "gay rights" amendment with the post-Civil War amendments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were necessary because slaves were viewed as property, were not deemed citizens, and had no right to vote. Those amendments were NOT passed to protect the rights of former slaves to personal choices, or lifestyle, or marriage, etc. I believe very strongly that the Constitution should not be amended for such things a banning burning the flag, or requiring recognition of gay marriage.

 

[Vis]

Marriage is not an issue where the Federal government has any business dictating policy. When are we going to stop pretending that the Fed was EVER meant to be the solution to normal, everyday societal issues, such as child support, or marriage? Further, once you forfeit the power to the Federal government over personal and societal issues, do not complain to me about the fact that the Fed is now doing the opposite of what you want.

I took this position in 1996, when Congress passed the stupid "defense of marriage act." Congress had no goddam business enacting such a law. Voters are too ignorant to remember that the entity that they now believe should be entrusted with policing and enforcing marriage rights is the same goddam institution that less than a generation ago specifically banned gay marriage.

While the Federal government was enacting laws that banned gay marriage (a clearly unconstitutional exercise of authority), many states were implementing protection of and recognition for gay marriage.

The simple, undeniable truth is that voters have basically zero knowledge of how government works, and the reasons why a fawning love for the all-powerful centralized government is a bad idea. These voters seem to believe that nobody will ever run the Federal government except "their guys," so what could go wrong?

Hey, dumbasses, everything could go wrong. That is the whole idea behind a government of limited powers. The Federal government has no business telling me who can get married to whom - ever.

I live in California. My state has so many @#$%ing problems that it would take weeks for me to list them. One problem we now battle is the fact that our initiative process - adopted to bypass the legislature with direct implementation of law by the voters - is a system where every personal belief and ideological battle is played out via Constitutional amendment. This process has diminished the state Constitution to a "wish list." Based on my own experience in seeing how the initiative process is abused, using the Constitution as a personal "wish list," I have grown to hate the concept of amending the Constitution to bring about some personal preference. Please, please, please, please, please don't do this to the United States Constitution.

Finally, please do not conflate a "gay rights" amendment with the post-Civil War amendments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were necessary because slaves were viewed as property, were not deemed citizens, and had no right to vote. Those amendments were NOT passed to protect the rights of former slaves to personal choices, or lifestyle, or marriage, etc. I believe very strongly that the Constitution should not be amended for such things a banning burning the flag, or requiring recognition of gay marriage.

It's not being amended. The amendments proposed are to outlaw gay marriage. But all that wasn't my real point. My point is that marriage equality plays as an issue for the left in the election.