15 votes

Rand Paul gay marriage comments

I have considered myself an independent most of my life. I despise the two party system with a passion. I was first drawn to the libertarian movement based based on my personal belief that the government had NO right telling someone how to live their lives. I love Doctor Paul and believe he embodies that belief to the tee. I do not understand why Rand would make such a comment about about gay marriage.

The libertarian viewpoint is that the federal government should stay out of marriages completely! It should be an individuals choice to marry whoever they want regardless of others viewpoints. I am not gay personally but have many friends that are and it pains me to see them pandering to Obama just because he said he approves of gay marriage. It pains me more to see the son of my political hero pandering to the hard christian right for reasons I don't understand.

Doctor Paul retains his personal opinions while still spreading a message of liberty and personal freedom. I feel that if Rand were a true libertarian he would do the same. I am just disappointed, I guess, because I thought Rand was the future of the movement. I will always remain a libertarian but will be unable to support him if he is willing to sell out on a personal freedom issue.

I would really love others viewpoints on this. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way?

http://youtu.be/t9tlQXbeL3s

Full video skip to about 5:15

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There really is no excuse for

There really is no excuse for such a boneheaded, Sean Hannity-like joke... unless he was drunk. And he'd have to be really, really drunk to say something so idiotic at this time. Did anyone smell his breath after his speech?

saying obama's position was "gay"

was not an assault on obama's sexual orientation.

gay people are not "gay", as in odd, strange, bizarre. they are gay as in sexual orientation.

gay people are not "gay", as in levity, happy, frivolity. they are gay as in sexual orientation.

hence obama's stance on gay marriage was "odd", "strange", and "bizarre".

His stance was odd because it was a pro state's rights stance, and that's highly inconsistent and hypocritical of Obama, who is ready to trample state's rights most of the time, till it's convenient not to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbBoY6vFJM&feature=youtu.be

Rand is a republican not a

Rand is a republican not a libertarian.

Correction: in his political life, he is libertarian

He is politically a libertarian, not a Libertarian, but he could be a Libertarian, as follows:

First, capital "L" Libertarian refers to party or registration.

Small-L libertarian refers to the philosophy of small or no government, and individual freedom. Obviously, there are degrees of this.

Rand Paul is a conservative in his personal philosophy. Personal conservatives believe in the rule of law and in "traditional" personal values, which in this country often means "Christian" and "Constitutional" values, but might be for other traditional institutions (e.g., other religions, the military).

Both the Constitution and Jesus are very libertarian in their philosophy, so conservatives may seem so, too. Liberals can seem libertarian when they have a personal committment to loving others without force.

So, what does it mean when a conservative like Rand or Ron decides to get political? Simple: if they want to force their conservative values on everyone, they're politically statist; if they want to recognize your Creator-given rights, they're libertarian.

They may be registered with any party. The only requirement to become a big-L Libertarian party member is to pledge not to advocate initiation of force through government.

Thus, even many Libertarians are not libertarians in their personal values, which may range from ultra liberal to ultra conservative as well as libertarian, and many members of the dominant parties are really libertarians in their political preferences, that is, as long as they can practice their own values, they don't need to impose them by force on others.

Really, getting the government out of the way makes life much simpler!

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

That this is even a topic for

That this is even a topic for discussion at this time demonstrates the complete disconnect of the American population. Gay marriage is so irrelevant right now - its not important.

You know, let me remind you

You know, let me remind you that 50 years ago, people like you were saying "Civil rights is so irrelevant right now - its not important".

That was because just like gay marriage, civil rights did not directly affect more than 80% of the population.

But in reality, it affects everyone. It is incredibly harmful when we enshrine in our laws and our constitutions a second class of citizenship. When we tell our brothers, sisters, and friends, that you have less rights. That you have fewer rights.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Thank you. I wish more people understood this. I want to get

the government the hell out of my life in every way possible, which means even though I'm in the majority on this issue... I still fight for the minority to save us all from future governmental crap and because, quite simply, it's just wrong. It's morally wrong. What's next, are we gonna start shipping them off to concentration camps like we did w/ the Japanese-Americans during WWII?

I'm all for bigots in their backwards hardcore religions discriminating against gays (and/or Jews, blacks, women, whatever) as long as there's no force. Private clubs (or religions, whatever) are just that: private. But it's not OK for the government to do it, because they are force. Pure and simple, that's all government is. The use of force.

And now for something completely different.

Towards the end of his speech Rand mentioned that America is approaching a "day of reckoning". He is correct. Here is a commentary from Dr. Stephen Jones on the decision of President Obama with regard to same sex marriage from a true Christian perspective. I believe it is good news for everyone.

"Earlier this past week, North Carolina became the 30th state to pass a constitutional amendment affirming a biblical definition of marriage. This caused VP Joe Biden to take a stand in the opposite position. This, in turn, forced President Obama to gingerly take the same stand.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-09/oba...

So what is going on with this? Isaiah tells us that this is one of the marks of Israel. That is unfortunate, but true. Isaiah 1:9, 10 says,

(9) Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. (10) Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, Gen. 19:5 shows that Sodom and Gomorrah were known for their traffic in opium and their homosexuality.

"Righteous Lot" is a type of the Church living in Sodom. He chose that area in order to enjoy its economic benefits. Abraham is a type of the overcoming remnant, which is the primary theme of Isaiah's prophecies. Abraham interceded for Sodom, and if there had been even ten righteous men there (as a remnant of grace), the city would have been spared. However, they were not there.

Isaiah compares Israel to Sodom, but he makes one distinction. He implies that there was indeed a remnant in Israel, whereas there was none in Sodom. For that reason, Sodom was destroyed by fire.

God promised a remnant would remain in Israel, and that it is because of the remnant that the nation would not be utterly destroyed. Hence, the fire that is coming upon America will not destroy it as it did Sodom. The fire will be the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit that will completely transform the nation into the righteous nation that God has called it to be...

The Western nations were established by the ex-Israelites of the dispersion, when they migrated north and west when Assyria collapsed. The Assyrian records, many which were discovered when Nineveh was excavated in the year 1900, refer to those ex-Israelites as Gimirri, or Ghomri, Khumri, or even Humria. We know them today as the Celts.

The Persian records of Darius, written on his tomb at Behistun, translate Gimirri into two other languages by the terms Saka and Sakka. The Greek historians spelled it Sacae, Skuths, and Scythians. The Roman historians spelled it Saxons.

These are the people who founded the Western nations, now known as Sodom and the center of Babylonian culture and finances.

Isaiah points out their faults but also their strength. Their fault is their rebellion against the laws of God, and so the prophet says, "give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah."

Their strength is the overcoming remnant, whose intercession is guaranteed by the prophetic word to bring about real "change" in the hearts of the people. A national repentance is coming, but not before we have fully proven that we are Sodom.

It was necessary, therefore, that President Obama should be the spokesman that reveals the lawless heart of the nation. All things must be exposed, and we must testify against ourselves in the divine court one way or another.

For most people, the solution is to vote. The problem with voting is that ungodly men in hidden positions of power control both of the major political parties. Hence, we are told to vote for one of their choices. We get to choose whether we want immorality or endless war and torture. We can vote for the Whore Party or the War Party. Frankly, I don't like either choice, and I prefer not to play their little game of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Many in the Church have cast aside the law in their theology. Most, however, contradict their own theology by affirming certain laws as having relevance today. The problem is that when they come to laws that they do not understand, or that they find disagreeable, they feel free to cast them aside and keep only the ones that agree with their flesh.

I find this to be hypocritical and inconsistent. James says that if we are guilty of violating one law, we are guilty of violating ALL of them (James 2:10). It is hypocritical, in other words, to take a stand against homosexual marriage, while practicing the sin of usury. How can we denounce fornication while supporting the prison system? We either agree with God or not.

Let us be either hot or cold. If we are against God's law, then let us rejoice at the President's affirmation of homosexual marriage. If we take God's side in this matter, then let us live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). As much as I despise the lawlessness of the Whore Party, I think the hypocrisy of the War Party is worse.

We are no different from Israel and Judah in ancient times. Israel was the Whore Nation in those days. See the prophecy of Hosea. Judah was the hypocritical nation, pretending to be believers, but engaging in secret lawlessness. See Jeremiah 7. So what was God's verdict? Jer. 3:11 says,

(11) And the Lord said unto me, "The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah."

America as a nation is Israel, the harlot who advertises her wares. The Church is Judah, the secret harlot behind closed doors. It is only the overcoming remnant that makes the difference between national destruction and national salvation. Isaiah makes that very clear."

This is an excerpt. The full article is here:

http://gods-kingdom-ministries.org/weblog/WebPosting.cfm?Log...

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I just downvoted it to get that space-hogger out of the way

But in addition:

http://www.advocate.com/op-ed/2012/05/01/opinion-do-not-give...

(you're perverting scripture. What's your deal)

Did you read the full comment?

The entire article is well worth reading. It's not what you believe it to be.

What do you mean by down voting "gets that space hogger out of the way?" Surely down voting doesn't affect the position of the comment. Or does it? Oh hang on, if it gets too many down votes it will collapse. That is a pity since it is a good article and makes some very valid points.

As to "perverting scripture" the article dealt with that also. Why don't you read it? e.g. "I find this to be hypocritical and inconsistent. James says that if we are guilty of violating one law, we are guilty of violating ALL of them (James 2:10). It is hypocritical, in other words, to take a stand against homosexual marriage, while practicing the sin of usury. How can we denounce fornication while supporting the prison system? We either agree with God or not."

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Perhaps you should check out my link

Before replying...so I don't have to spend a full page reiterating what the link says

As regarding the "violating...", I agree - there's a lot of your sin is worse than my sin going on. However, as you'll see in my link, regarding gay relationships as a sin is convoluted - much like King James "translating" the Bible so that it's easier to divorce and putting everything in the male tense (non-specific pronouns).

By the by, it does. I would suggest linking to a blog page if you have a whole lot to say to expound

I just watched the video.

Matthew is a very articulate and persuasive advocate for same sex marriage. I believe he is being somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays same sex relationships based upon material I have read about them, including much by homosexuals. But then heterosexual relationships are also less than ideal in modern society. One might even describe the condition as "chaotic" as Matthew mentions Paul describing the society of his day.

The core issue for Matthew and I suspect many if not most homosexuals and lesbians is acceptance by society at large. Frankly I do not see that happening in the current moral condition of mankind that is so fundamentally based on violence, prejudice, hate and lawlessness. I believe that level of acceptance will have to wait for the Kingdom Of God. Then we shall all see the glory of God and these concerns will fade into oblivion. This day may not be far off. This was the subject of the post that you voted down.

Matthew describes his personal state as being one of loneliness. This is the precise state of every human being living apart from God. There is no escape from it not even in marriage. This is why Jesus advises us that the relationships we consider important in the natural life of this creation are the very relationships that will be a stumbling block to us in entering into a spiritual union with Him.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

So what Matthew is seeking does not exist apart from a total surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ. By imagining it does he is taking the wrong path and committing idolatry. This is true for every Christian even those who are heterosexual. One day he will discover this for himself.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Matthew states he is a Christian

I'm not quite sure what you're saying about him

Many are called but few are chosen.

“Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

"For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14)

Jesus answered them, “You are deceived, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:29-30)

"For the love of Christ controls us, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised. So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view. Even though we have known Christ from such a human point of view, now we do not know him in that way any longer. Then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away – look, what is new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:14-17)

Matthew is looking to the Church and society for approval rather than to God. He has spent two years searching the scriptures to find justification for his personal desires. But God is not interested in changing the world to suit Matthew. God is at work to bring forth the New Creation and He is calling us into it.

The Old Creation and all its traditions, customs and beliefs died with Jesus Christ at Calvary. Jesus rose from the dead as the forerunner of the New Creation into which we are all invited. Most Christians are content to settle down in Babylon and seek to follow as best they can the traditions of the elders believing that when they die they will go to heaven. Others believe that Jesus is coming back and will 'rapture' the Church while bringing judgment on the Earth. None of this is true.

Jesus taught and preached the Kingdom of God which is the New Creation of which He is the King. He took all the sins (errors, evil deeds and shortcomings) of the First Adam (Mankind) onto Himself and died in order to cancel the entire debt of the Ages. He then rose from the dead demonstrating His power over even death. He then ascended into the realm of absolute sovereignty and power above all the heavens and filling the Universe. He then sent the Holy Spirit to anoint all those faithful disciples waiting for this promise to give them new spiritual birth and to begin in them the process of recreation.

This has been proceeding for the past two thousand years and there have been those Christians (the Few) who have followed Him into the Holy of Holies to be fully united with Him in spirit and in truth. These are the mature sons of God. This is the true path that all Christians are called to follow and few do. The time is now at hand when the next stage of God's Plan of The Ages is to be revealed from heaven with the manifestation of these sons of God. This is the coming of the Kingdom of God into the Earth. The sons of God are the kings and priests of that Kingdom under the King the Lord Jesus Christ who will restore the entire creation.

There is no more important work for Christians to do than to believe in the soon appearing of the King of kings and Lord of lords with all those who have come into union with Him in the past Ages. This is the First Resurrection. Even now it is not too late to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

"For through the law I died to the law so that I may live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. " (Galatians 2: 19-20)

"Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit." (Galatians 5:24-25)

"For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:18-23)

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Downvoted again for space-hogging

You sound more interested in pontificating than addressing the facts.

here is Rand addressing gay

here is Rand addressing gay marriage

http://youtu.be/LAbBoY6vFJM

Rand believes personally in

Rand believes personally in the tradition judeo-christian definition of marriage. But he also doesn't believe the government should define. He has stated before that the government should remain neutral about gay marriage.

Well

you don't have to be a libertarian to follow the constitution and i think Rand Paul is one of those folks who will accept some goverment intervention in life as long as its not against the constitution.

that's all well and good, but

that's all well and good, but Rand is more libertarian than 90% of the people in this country, and there's a good chance that he's more libertarian than you.

Guys come on

The good cannot be the enemy of the perfect. There will never ever be another Ron Paul. The man is one of a kind. His son is not supposed to be a carbon copy. Are any of you carbon copies of your parents? Whats important is that Rand endorsed the ideas of liberty, and his continued efforts on capital hill move the ball in our direction....

Since when does endorsing the

Since when does endorsing the idea of liberty mean pandering to a religious conservative base regarding exactly the opposite of liberty with regards to marriage? I'm not for churches having to have a definition of marriage forced onto them but I'm also not for having the definition of marriage be forced onto others who aren't part of that religion. Marriage needs to be a contractual arrangement between the two parties involved and that is that. Government is then forced to uphold their contract as it is written.

I'm really not too fond of Rand for reasons like this. Liberty isn't selective. It is pervasive and it only ends where you begin harming someone else. The apple has fallen very far from the tree apparently. The good Dr still has my vote though!

How is Rand forcing homosexuals to accept his definition?

Homosexuals, anybody for that matter can think whatever they want about marriage. You act as if he's orchestrating a federal thought police to find out what people believe about marriage.

Rand endorsed the ideas of liberty??

He endorsed government sponsored discrimination! -the opposite of Liberty!!

I just don't like him

:b But I kinda agree with your comments

I think the word "marriage license" should be killed

and "sex license" should be used instead. That would be far more accurate and would expose the hocus-pocus and social engineering hiding beneath the veneer of religion and conformity.

You need a sense of perspective

I'm sorry but I must have missed the part where he called for federal legislation banning gay marriage. Oh that's right, he didn't. The fact that you accuse him of selling out on his libertarian values proves to me you don't understand libertarianism.

Where in libertarian theory does it say a person has to be openly tolerant and accepting of other people's lifestyles? As long as they're not using force (government) to coerce their neighbor, there is no betrayal of principle. This is libertarianism 101.

You know, I get a kick out of people who are always complaining about Rand. He is, by a wide margin, the most anti-war/ pro-liberty member of the Senate. I think you're problem with Rand is that he's a christian from Kentucky with a little hay on his suit, and not how good/bad of a libertarian he is.

If I come off as a little frustrated in this post, know that it's not entirely directed at you. I'm just sick of people making up boogey man stories about one of the few people in government taking a stand for liberty. It would be like complaining that your filet mignon was slightly under cooked when your alternative is taco meat. It's nonsense, and it needs to stop.

- Liberty and Prosperity -

Dude I totally agree one does

Dude I totally agree one does not have to be openly tolerant of others to be a libertarian. To be honest we could have someone who thought they were a jedi running the show as long as they didn't woo people who are "using force (government) to coerce their neighbor".That is exactly what a lobbying group does. All you need is some money, time and meeting the right folks and hey look at that you're influencing government. The group he was speaking with does just that. I just think he waved around his christian battle flag a little to people that actually do something with it. Be it for votes of whatever I don't know. Rand is not a bad guy and I think many took my post as attempting to bash him which was not my intention. I just though that more people placed value in holding on your points sticking to your guns.

Yeah

I think people often make the mistake of comparing him to his dad, so that when he does something differently people are quick to accuse him of pandering and bending. The fact is he's been on the right side of things when it counts, so it's hard for me to criticize him for being a "loud christian" - even if I don't personally like that style of politics. It just pisses me off when beltway types take pot shots at him for his rhetoric and style, meanwhile he's the only one in the Senate opposing the NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA etc. But thanks for being civil, and I voted your post up so more people can see the discussion.

- Liberty and Prosperity -

Well said. It is very

Well said. It is very obviously a narrative being pushed in the media and by paid trolls on this website. The Dems and neocons must really be afraid of Rand and what he could mean to the future of the GOP if they are this desperate to ruin him already, this early. We are a big voting block now. They desperately don't want Rand to have our support...not after seeing what we have done in just 4 years with Ron. They hope Ron will retire, we will reject Rand and anyone he associates with like Lee or DeMint, fiscal conservatism will be silenced and all this liberty "nonsense" will all go away.

And again not so much.

I am not a paid troll geeeez. I have a good job a nice truck and I don't live under a bridge :P. I simply feel that he was selling out to people that represent the opposition that, we, you, I and everyone here have pushed against for some time. And who exactly are the neocons? Because it was my understanding that the special interest group he was speaking with falls right into that category. I think it is fine for him to have whatever opinion he wants on marriage but by speaking with these people he is selling out the people who back him most. His comments have let me down yes but I don't think it warrants people from totally shutting down to his message. He's cut from the same block of wood that I would do anything for and I think he will still hold his ground. But as I said before if time continues to pass and he keeps wooing that crowd supporting him will be difficult.