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?


Full video skip to about 5:15

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Rand Paul's "joke" about Obama's support for gay marriage

This is but one of several reasons why I am a supporter of RON Paul and why I am NOT a supporter of RAND Paul.

the "big story" coulda been about Ron Paul & delegates.. but....

Rand came along and mucked it all up... Just like Mittens paid him to do.

"sometimes I hug the coffee table when no one is looking."

It's clearly a sensitive issue

and a faux paux for sure..

gotta remember The Bible was written by a bunch of old masochistic menatally ill Jewish guys whom loved to stone women to death and anybody else for that matter. They hated Jesus so much they killed him too.

Pandering to these idiots and dividers was a super duper stupid -not sure what he was thinking -not sure he's the nice nice man his father is even though he has stood up on principle in the senate.

ugh I guess msm will drag this crap up for years to come

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

Hmm...goes both ways, doesn't it?

You say "pandering to these idiots and dividers" is "super duper stupid". You also say "the Bible was written by a bunch of old masochistic mentally ill Jewish guys who loved to stone women to death". Given that some consider the Bible a Holy Book, don't you see how your own comments could be divisive?

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams

I agree.

Divisive and offensive.

The media teaches that it is ok to bash and ridicule one group, but not the other, and it seems some here still haven't let go of this bias yet.

The government does not really have the right to define marriage one way or the other. If you think it does, you are probably wasting your time with libertarian leaning politicians like Ron or Rand. Both Ron and Rand have said they personally believe in the traditional definition. They have the same position. This isn't pandering. It is just the fact that liberty and leaving it to the states would have the effect of allowing both definitions to co-exist. This is bad though, for those who want to keep the wedge issue going and keep us divided. Which is why the media is attacking Rand, pretending this was controversial.

The fact that you say "traditional"

As if that gives your view more validity is offensive

Get over it

Except I'm not Christian and

Except I'm not Christian and that isn't my personal view. I just accept that people can disagree and still co-exist.... That's what tolerance is about.

Ron Paul also says he believes

marriage is only between a man and a woman. I didn't see Rand Paul saying he thought private gay marriage should be outlawed. Ron Paul has never said he thought government should recognize gay marriage - just that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. I don't think Ron and Rand have any difference on this.


Except that Rand is using his personal views to pander to a certain electorate (and thereby isolating another), whereas Ron focuses on the role of government and keeps his personal opinions to himself.

How about Ron Paul on abortion?

At Christian conferences he goes and on and on about how abortion is murder, even though he is for the state's deciding it.

He is not advocating anything against gays.

Some gays (like my nephew) believe there should be laws FOR gays. Because I oppose this, he says I am against gays. He is wrong. If I were against gays, I would support laws that criminalize it. I oppose those laws just as much as I do laws for gays. Either is legal compulsion and Liberty allows neither.

What the heck does it mean to "isolate" some segment of the electorate? Does it mean to "disagree"? To "not approve"? So what?

If it means to legislate against, then your logic is faulty. You may not like what Rand said here, but he said nothing wrong.

Where do you want the govt to intervene in people's lives, it what they say?

The gay marriage debate is so messed up

The reason being is that one side is speaking a different language then the other. The social conservatives against it are arguing from a biblical point of view, while the gays are arguing from an economic point of view. It is a true political distraction and tool. The problem with gays not being able to marry is to much government interference in our personal property to begin with. Gays have to spend thousands of dollars creating trusts and wills for their belongings to go their loved ones in the case of death, etc. They pay higher taxes on income, can't take deductions..and so on. If the government wasn't involved in all of this from the get...then RP's argument of "keeping the gov't out of it" would be fine. However, as the way society is at the moment wiht the govt essentially owning us, there has to be some set of rules...which is bs.

Rand Endorses Freedom

Freedom is the right to make our own decisions, it is not an endorsement of that choice whether it be drugs or same-sex marriage. Government should not be in the business of defining or re-defining "marriage". We are free to choose a partner, we are not free to impose our choice on others by legislating how they perceive our choice.
Rand Paul is entitled to his opinion on the moral issues such as same-sex marrage, drugs, legalized prostitution, etc. without our criticism of his political views which clearly endorse freedom. Rand Paul has not "tarnished" his standing with me.

Rand was the future of the

Rand was the future of the movement... says a 12 hour account who signed up just to complain about Rand. Sure. Don't feed the trolls.


I have been an avid reader of the Daily Paul for over a year now. I am active duty Army and other than donating when the money bombs drop there is not a whole lot I can do for the campaign. Plus to be honest there are PLENTY of people at the Daily Paul who say everything I ever wanted to say and then some. This is just something that I saw that kinda took me off guard. Does it make Rand a bad guy or a neo-con? I don't think so at all. But is he snubbing those who value that sticking to your guns is an important issue, absolutely. Just as many others said he is not Ron Paul.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It's just that, when you become a new member of a community, and your first post is negative and divisive, it looks kinda bad... And we do get trolls here often, who post negative posts just to stir up a debate/controversy, and specific trolls who specifically troll Rand Paul threads posting misinformation, etc.

Thanks mate

Totally understandable. It was never my intention to put fire on gas, I was simply looking for others educated opinions and thoughts from like minded people. Even though there is division with some issues I believe everyone here at the Daily Paul shares a common goal and similar attitudes. On this website some of the most passionate and strong willed political people come together for a common cause. I love reading on the forums because you can literally feel the energy in peoples words. I will try and post elsewhere so I don't look so much like a troll....which I assure you I am not :)

Not sure what his political

Not sure what his political viewpoint is, but I share his opinion stated at 5:15 and beyond about the Bible being clear about homosexuality being a perversion.

I like the libertarian position because the government should not be involved. I am upset because mainstream media has been making this an election point regarding president Obama. It is just Obama's personal opinion and we can disagree or agree with him.

It is yet another distraction from real issues. Media throwing out another bone for those with strong opinions to get caught up arguing and getting nothing constructive done.

Here's my reply to a friend who asked me about this:

I hadn't even heard of the flap surrounding Rand Paul's commentary war with Obama, and dismissed it as a non issue. Now it has taken off and it's all over the internet, of course. So now I've listened to the video, and caught the remarks, and here's my take on it: Leave it to the U.S. media and citizenry to take an issue like this and LITERALLY make a Federal Case out of it while there is a battle for the GOP presidential primary going on. Who cares what these people's personal views on marriage are, anyway? Rand Paul obviously has a long way to go before he becomes his father yet, but he and Obama both are officers of the Federal Government. What on earth are they doing discussing the issue of marriage? Marriage is not a Federal issue and, no matter what bible version you adhere to, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as being a function of the Federal Government. It's something that's thrown out there for the media to chew on and to be used to divide the populace in to opposing factions, like so many issues are meant to do. If the government just stayed away from the marriage issue, as it is supposed to do, then we would certainly not be having this discussion. Obama now miraculously, in an election year, decides that he supports gay marriage. So what? Rand Paul, pandering to a bunch of Christians (something his dad would never do), opposes gay marriage. So what? It's a testimonial to the pathetic level of political discourse in this country that divisive and unconstitutional nonissues such as this continue to be in the forefront of our discussions instead of focusing on things such as why the government is bankrupting our country and why they have declared war on our own citizenry.

So, what's the problem?

You "gay marriage" proponents have your guy to vote for.
His name is Obama. It's his main running point.

Go on, now.

The fact is that every one of you "gay marriage boys" is a socialist, arguing for a socialist program. Because every single gay in America could get married TODAY, in ANY STATE, and all they have to do is find somebody to perform the ceremony, or by common-law co-habitation in some states, and VOILA'! They are hitched.
So, that's not the argument. And in reality, that has NEVER been the argument. It's a red-herring, designed by the red political left.

The argument is that they want gov't benefits, and socialist perks, from the gov't recognition of the marriage. They want to slop at the gov't trough.
Look, face the fact that NONE of you are libertarians, and you're all socialists, along with being social liberals.
What you are calling "freedom" is the "freedom" to put your hand into everybody else's pockets, to get your desired results. You ain't foolin' anybody.

You belong on the left, or you need to change your tune.
Obama, here they come.

though i rarely disagree with you

i have no problem with anyone lessening their tax burden.
i have no problem with anyone attempting to recover every last cent stolen from them under the color of law.
i agree wholeheartedly this is a tax issue.
it's a shame it doesn't lead to that discussion.

if i refuse to relinquish my right to marry to mere privilege, than i must support those that use their freedom in a way i may/may not approve also.

rand was wrong.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

You're not really disagreeing with me.

I think it's fine to get the gov't totally out of marriage.
But that's not what the "gay marriage agenda" is, and if you ask any one of them here what they want, they'll tell you they want "gov't recognition" of their marriage, with the unspoken parenthetical of what comes along with that from gov't.

Even if you were lucky enough here to find one of the who thinks that, the overwhelming agenda in the gay marriage issue is to get into the gov't perks. That's why it is a left issue to expand gov't, and also why they have used the red-herring of "discrimination" as their war-cry. But, they clearly aren't "discriminated" against, because as anyone already knows,they can get married right now, and nobody is stopping them. It's not the "getting married" part that they want. They already have that.

To the point of "getting back what they pay in taxes", you could apply that to every communist welfare program there is. In fact, that very reasoning could be used to argue for totalitarian communism. I won't ascribe to that, myself.

I have watched the left demagogue issue after issue over the last 35 years. And this one is a perfect example of using a bleeding heart issue to advance a totalitarian socialist agenda.
They are practiced at this, and they always pick some minority group with a perceived gripe to use for their attack. And the "aggrieved" minority never seems to notice that they are being used, or they don't care because it seems to advance their particular special interest agenda, while it's being used to do a greater evil by the left.

When was the last "get the

When was the last "get the government out of marriage and take away my marriage benefits" rally you attended? That street runs two ways. Rand made a sly insult toward one group in order to cozy up to another. That was not smart.

I have one here every day.

I don't know why others don't.
Maybe they are socialists too.

As for Rand's insult, I'm never shy about insulting socialists.
And I never have any trouble seeing thru their fake cover-stories either.

They don't because THEY

They don't because THEY benefit. Remember, it's only wasteful spending when it's going into someone else's pocket!

And so there would be

the reasoning which I support, to get the gov't OUT of marriage totally, and NOT to support the gay marriage agenda to ADD MORE socialist to the feeding trough.

So I'm assuming you have an agenda

If you want to get married

You can get married TODAY

This very second, anywhere in the US, to your gay partner.

Your agenda is socialism, and you know it, and I'm not buying your silliness.
The answer was already in my above posts.
You're just having a hissy fit.

You sound

Like you don't get out much