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.

A true libertarian should not

A true libertarian should not endorse government regulation of personal choice, such as marriage. Rand is not a true libertarian if he believes the government should be involved in personal decisions. Like others have said, I'm disappointed in Rand for this one. If Rand thinks appealing to crowds like this will help him win in 2016, he is mistaken. It is the appealing to crowds like this that led to the complete collapse of the likes of Bachmann, Santorum Perry, etc.

I didn't hear anything

I didn't hear anything advocating state regulation of marriages. He took a strong stance on his personal belief of the issue and the spiritual state of this country. In fact, he emphasized that this issue, among others, needs to be dealt with outside of politics. Libertarians should love this.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

What's all the commotion about?

If I could quote the man himself:
"That doesn't mean we have to be harsh and mean and hate people. We understand sin, we believe its a sin. We still are sinners and people sin. Understand that we're not out there preaching some hateful dogma against people, but that doesn't mean that we have to give up our traditions."

That sounds pretty non-hateful to me.

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it." -Ron Paul

then maybe his comment should have been

"who does obama think he is, God? rights don't come from government no matter how warm and fuzzy they make you feel"

just enough anti-obama to elicit cheers and libertarian enough to make them think.

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

So sick & tired of MSM spin on "God, Guns, & Gays"

Sure enough, go to the L vs. R entrenched liberals at RawStory.com, they DON'T discuss the portion of Rand's speech that they CAN build coalitions on such as his harsh warning to neocons who take "glee" into going to wars illegally and callously, as well as Rand's testament to importance of life, and even though just like Dr. Paul's position that for him, it's about between man and a woman, he does not seek to use the Fed. Govt to dictate it, as it should Constitutionally be left to the States.

Though not sure if Rand went as far as to say that all govt should stay out of marriage altogether, as Dr. Paul the Elder has always principally contended.

These are personal individual issues that will NEVER be resolved as long as humans exist.

We all know the Ruling Class brings up these 'never-resolvables' every 2, 4, 6 years to divide and conquer.

And yet after decades of this, apparently the sheeple electorate never learned the core lesson: bread & circus over trivialities, while Rome burns.

Frankly, anthropologically speaking, marriage has never ever been about 'love' however yes, it was about stability, but not for the reasons that many believe. Marriage came about as a way to end inheritance disputes, as one may guess, men were rather promiscuously depositing seeds rather frequently. Though of course, it takes two to tango, or I suppose more than two, in some cases.

So even back in the days of yore, it began as a verbal contract. LESS dispute over heirs and inheritance? More stable the society.

And, even now, even for hetero couples, legally, technically speaking, marriage is nothing more than a contractually consensual union, with govt approval. And for the LGBT community, this only becomes an issue BECAUSE we have a welfare state where hospital visiting rights, 401K & social security become an issue. But frankly, EVERYONE of those issues, even now, can be resolved via a trust, a will, and power of attorney.

"Gay marriage" is such a NON-issue!

It's so absurdly ludicrously insane that the world is literally about to end as we know it, at Federal Reserve's current trajectory, with one more false flagged state-sponsored terrorism away from WWIII with Syria, followed by Iran, then the all too convenient declaration of Martial Law/full rollout of the NDAA policestate at home.

Yet all partisan bozos can think about is gay marriage. Frankly, the worse of the two are the liberals, as they fall for this crap and made and issue out of no issue; they could have easily gone with the more principled 'all govt should be out of the marriage business, as they're handing out marriage licenses (a govt permit for activities that are deemed illegal otherwise) for the NATURAL Right of voluntary association, in which the govt should have no delegated authority to judge one way or another on.'

Instead, the liberals literally want permission to love whomever they want, from the govt.

How F'ng insane? Frankly the State's only interest in making sure women have babies is to ensure growth of more tax slaves for its plantation. They have absolutely no interest in familial stability, as they benefit off of single parent families who are more susceptible to becoming dependent on the Welfare state.

It's such a disgusting, cynical, Machiavellian psychology. But should anyone expect anything less from centrally planning govt terrorists?

It's like we literally have more information at our fingertips than at any other time in all of recorded human history, yet people still only log onto cultivate partisan echo chamber. A truly sad state of affairs.

Seriously, if you google "ron paul, what is "trending" is not what should (ie. our "rump convention" happening in two different states, simultaneously), but Rand's 'didn't think oBUSHma "can get any gayer"' comment.

Like that's news.

"Free will" and Rhetorical & all that, I know, but really, these are the days that I truly wonder, why is the human brain even capable of entertaining such trivial nonsense?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Rand is not pandering.

Rand is a Christian and is speaking according to his beliefs. Rand does not believe that there is such a thing as moral neutrality. He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore there is no such thing as gay marriage, that the idea is laughable, so he makes fun of the concept, as well he should. A man marrying a man is as silly as a man marrying a toaster.

Laws always spring from the prevailing religion of a people. That's just how the world works. Culture is religion externalized, as has been said. The reason Muslim countries legally countenance polygamy is because that is what their religion teaches. The reason the laws of western civilization do not allow polygamy is because of their long-standing religious beliefs.

The West has been Christian for 1,500 years, but before that our ancestors legally practiced polygamy, infanticide, abortion, and slavery. Right now, Western Christianity is in a period of declension, which is why sodomy and abortion have come roaring back.

In the Christian West slavery was abolished around A.D. 1,000. When the Church slid into decline, slavery came back and was not abolished again until various times in the 1800's.

So, yes, if the prevailing morals of a culture do not allow for sodomy, laws against it will come about because that is how we define ourselves. When those morals change, the laws will change. That is a very natural and organic occurrence. Both Ron and Rand Paul have stated that America has a spiritual problem and until that is corrected, sodomy, abortion, and such, will gain acceptance. When we the people do not practice sodomy it is natural that the government, which is made up of we the people will also not countenance it, and visa versa.

Since there is no such thing as moral neutrality, is is impossible for a government to be morally neutral. In our system, the feds do not make certain types of laws for all of the states because of our practice of state's rights, but in our culture the feds are still expected to acknowledge right to life and so forth, like the Pauls have said.

So, no, Rand is not pandering. He believes certain things, and like his father, he does not change his tune depending on what group he is talking to.

Ron Paul is a Christian too. They are one and the same.

This is a good thing and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath.

In the end these too will vote exactly the same; when it counts.


Rand is a big Agovernemnt Republican.

Not a libertarian nor liberty minded. Govt should stay out of everyones bedroom.

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

I have to step in to this mess because I have pretty strong feelings on this. Here's my thought on gay couples: IT'S NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS!!!

For those of you that argue the religious side of it and use the bible... you clearly have not read this essay, entitled "Why Can't I Own a Canadian?" you can read it here: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-...
The biblical references mentioned there check out, for those of you that don't want to bother looking it up. So as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of that argument.

Realistically, marriage should be a religious term that isn't ANY of the government's business. Why should any couple, gay or straight, require a LICENSE from the fucking government to be married? That's insane. So either it's a religious thing and the first amendment applies (no government involvement)... or it's a secular thing, and the 14th amendment applies (equal protection under the law). No matter how you look at this, gays should be able to have the same SECULAR rights as straight people. Whether your church blesses your partnership w/ someone else and calls it "marriage" or not isn't relevant. Take that up with your God/gods and your church. But here on earth we should all be entitled to the same rights. From a secular standpoint, any group of two (or more) consenting adults should have the legal right to enter into ANY type of arrangement they want. Period.

If two guys getting married threatens your straight marriage then you've got a pretty big problem in your own damn life you should address. Hell not only to straight people have a 50% divorce rate but they're the ones that keep making the gays! ;) ... Keeping two men or two women from having the same "marital rights" as a straight couple is no different then when we used to do the same w/ interracial couples. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that any libertarian/freedom oriented/liberty minded/etc person could make an argument against it. Seriously it just pisses me off so much. I feel like I'm telling a group of people why blacks should be allowed to vote or marry white people. WTF.

Okay, end of rant.


Great comment...

Our Rights Are Individual Rights

You said , "no matter how you look at this, gays should be able to have the same secular rights as straight people.". Our rights are not bestowed on us as group rights, but rather as individual rights to life and liberty There should be no such thing as gay rights, mixed races rights, Protestant rights, red haired freckled face rights, etc.

I found nothing wrong with what Rand said in his speech, it's basically the same as what RP advocates. Do what you want to do but keep the government out of it. You want it both ways, you want people to be free to be sodomites, but you also want the government to give these people special rights.

We must hate the sin, but love the sinner.


1 Corinthians 14:34-35(NIV)
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29(NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Leviticus 19:19(NIV)
19 Keep my decrees.Do not mate different kinds of animals.Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


That was pretty good.

Even though I support the notion that a spiritual foundation is good for men and women, your arguments are well made.




I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you. Actually I totally agree. People are entitled to believe whatever they want but everyone's rights and personal freedoms should be equal and should not be dictated by law. In America it has to be and should be left to the individual states.

Well lets see

We have the Austin American-Statesman and ABC news as a source. Two bastions of integrity. I'll wait for the video, thank you.


I know the sources suck :/ .


Skip to about 5:15 for what he said

if you are religious..

If you are religious at all (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) homosexuality is considered one of the greatest sins man could commit, the acceptance of which, could likely ruin a society. Same sex marriage should definitely remain a state issue, but for those who don't understand why Rand is opposed to it, it's likely coming from a religious point of view over anything else. Although it would be interesting to hear whether he would leave it as a state issue or if he would take action to ban it on a national level.

Those religious views stem

Those religious views stem from evolutionary group survival behavior. As individualists, we should be cautious when it come to maintaining collectivist tribal behaviors that are carryovers from ancient superstitions.

Dr. Paul also has a religious

Dr. Paul also has a religious view on the entire argument but maintains that the government has no right to intervene. I feel that with Rand's comments he was asserting to the christian right that he would actively act against same sex marriage. As a libertarian I feel that this goes against the party tenets. If he is just saying it to win a demographic then he's not much better than the majority of our corrupted government.

True but..

Rand may not be libertarian like you. Having strong religious beliefs makes it extremely difficult to just accept a society filled with gay couples walking around, as hateful as it sounds. If I had to vote on legalizing same-sex marriage in my state, I would vote against it even though I think that's slightly unfair.


That is very fair stance! And as a state issue I support anyone's opinion regardless of my own. I just think the context he is presenting it is more federally focused. Especially since he was speaking in Iowa to a special interest lobbying group.


true.. I think we will all struggle after having the pleasure of Dr. Paul leading this movement for years. It will be tough and I think we will all be slightly let down because I doubt there will be another politician like RP. We've already seen the pandering and Obama-bashing out of Rand, but I guess it just goes to show that there really will never be another RP.

slippery slope

in my opinion it was the gay marriage advocates that intervened. There has never been gay marriage.

However, I follow Dr Paul's assertion that no Goverment should be involved with marriage, it should be left up to the church, where it originally began, before the Gov. co-opted it.

the whole issue is viewed as an ATTACK on cultural values

Americans, in the majority, have always been "straight", for decades & centuries, since our founding. It would NEVER have been a question for our Founders, because it would have been unheard of. But, if someone tried to bring it up, he/she would have been ousted socially-speaking.

Today, this is a struggle still between the Majority and the Minority. I personally am very upset about what is going on via our government bureaucrats in the Dpt. of Education who are wresting the "control" over the children in school from their parents influence.

Government has gone TOO FAR when the bureaucrats tell "us", we the people, what exactly our children should be learning about the homosexual issue. Government has no business doing this.

I don't care personally what people do behind closed doors. I only care when they try & shove their own agenda down the throats of my own children, or grand-children. Then, that is wrong.

The majority "should" make the rules based on our cultural values. What the Dpt. of Education is trying to do is to CHANGE our CULTURAL VALUES by indoctrinating our children. Rand Paul and I'm sure Ron Paul both are against what the Dpt. Of Ed. is doing from state to state. Ron Paul wants the 'control' to go back to the majority of the people, not the minority.

I do not recognize a "gay marriage". And, GOD doesn't either, but it doesn't mean GOD doesn't like a person who acts in a homosexual manner. But, it is crucial, if you're a believer in God, that you understand where HE stands on the issue, too. We cannot validate this behavior as a society. That's the way most people feel, even though they've been "silenced" into not saying it because it's not the "in" thing to state.

I've lived long enough to

I've lived long enough to know that people who insist there is only one "truth" (especially as it relates to religious matters) should be avoided.

So 1+1 is open to interpretation then


That kind of pedantic

That kind of pedantic hairsplitting is precisely why I mentioned "religious matters" and not "math" or "science". Take a minute to crack open a dictionary and look up the word "pedantic" while you're at it. Comprende?

Why are you straight?

I guess it boils down to what you personally believe. Yes the bible says homosexuality is wrong but its also says many other things that are commonly ignored.It seems to me that many people who disagree with homosexuality believe that gay folks choose to be that way or are somehow perverse by sin. After knowing many gay men and women and asking them why they are like they are the general consensus I feel is that they were born that way. Many of my friends have struggled with it, not understanding why they have such tendencies.

When asking why are you gay the best response I received was, why are you straight? And when I though about it I really didn't have a good answer. It's not because how I was raised and though I am a Christian, my faith was not a factor in my innate sexual preferences. It is simply how I am and how I was created. To look someone in the eye who feels the same way and be told that, I find it impossible to rebut them.

How can I tell another fellow Christian that they are full of sin and will burn in hell? That they were born already poisoned by evil? If a person says that's how they feel inside then dammit the world should except them as so. God would not have placed these people all over other world from all different races if it wasn't meant to be so.

There was never interracial

There was never interracial marriage before they lifted a ban, there was never any women voting until they allowed it etc...

I just don't see why anyone really cares what other people do and how they live, as long as it doesn't hurt them..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...