-9 votes

Maddow's Blog on Rand's DOMA Comments on Glenn Beck's Show -Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans

From her Facebook: Reactions to the DOMA ruling varied widely throughout the political world. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, talked to Glenn Beck about his fears of post-DOMA bestiality.

Doesn't the senator consider himself some kind of libertarian?

Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans

It seems much of the media establishment has decided Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) deserves to be taken seriously. He's made seven Sunday show appearances since February; the New York Times recently described Paul has one of his party's "rising stars"; and the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza last week referred to the Kentucky Republican as "the most interesting politician in the country" and "the most interesting man in the (political) world."

And yet, it's difficult to reconcile the media adulation and Rand Paul's occasional crackpot tendencies.

Earlier today, for example, the senator appeared on Glenn Beck's show to discuss, among other things, the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested the ruling could lead to polygamy: "If you change one variable -- man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman -- you cannot then tell me that you can't logically tell me you can't change the other variable -- one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men.... If I'm a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I'm an American citizen, that I can't have multiple marriages."

For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck. Here's the entirety of Rand Paul's response, in which the senator said he's "kind of with" the unhinged host.

"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?

"You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."

Raise your hand if you think Rand Paul has any idea what he's talking about.

More here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/26/19156364-post-d...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You may have something there.

This is primarily a wedge issue and it usually doesn't decide elections, but it definitely is something that the media can use to drum up their own ratings and it may translate into a few votes being swayed.

I disagree with you however regarding that his statement won't win him much additional favor in the Republican primary, Rick Santorum was the 2nd most popular candidate during the 2012 primary primarily by doing nothing but yammering about stupid wedge social-issues. In places like Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina and Alabama, this stuff will win you the entire state (note: with the exception of South Carolina most of these states were won by Santorum in terms of popularity, which obviously didn't speak to delegate results, but we all know that party bosses can screw with both of those).

This rhetoric could potentially cost Rand votes in the general election in a few places, including my own state of Pennyslvania in the urban areas, but the first thing is first, and the first thing is the primaries. The winner is usually a mealy mouthed moderate who calls himself a conservative, while the runner-up is usually a ultra-conservative zealot, and Rand is branding himself as being both to the public while really being neither.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

and.... just like that Rand

and.... just like that Rand really F'd up his run for President. FU glenn beck!

Don't jump to conclusions so

Don't jump to conclusions so quickly, Miguel. Rand is playing both sides of the fence.

http://www.dailypaul.com/290609/rand-paul-on-gay-marriage-go...

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Yeah I know zoo, I still am a

Yeah I know zoo, I still am a strong supporter of Rand, its just that i was talking to people today & they were trying to link Rand to Santorum man on dog quote

How many of these people were Rand supporters?

What you are describing sounds a lot like a lot of Democrat friends I have who agree with things that Ron Paul said back in 2012 but didn't support him because they don't like Republicans. Comparing Rand and Santorum is something that a committed Rachel Maddow drone with an undying love for Obama would say.

Ask them if they got a thrill up their leg during the last Obama speech on climate change and that will tell you all you need to know about them. :-)

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

I am VERY disappointed

I'm very disappointed he made such a stupid statement. That he even thought it, let alone let it leave his lips, is very concerning.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Whoa!!!

Are you suggesting that people better watch what they think? I think you need to do some hard thinking about what your commitment to liberty is if you are concerned that someone might "think" the wrong thing.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

They are free to think and say what they want

But we are free to not support them and not vote for them if we don't like what their words indicate they're thinking.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

content matters

If somebody is spewing national socialist dogma, they are free to think and say those things but everybody else is also free to judge them as anti-liberty. Libertarians should be careful about supporting national socialists since we will let them speak but they will not let us speak if they assume power. They don't believe in freedom of speech.

Another person's 'freedom of speech' ends in my view the moment they support censoring the speech of others. If you want to claim the right for yourself, you must recognize it for others.

"But it is difficult because

"But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?"

Oh the rhetoric! Does Rand actually test these lines with some secret polling agency?

Yes, they have to be human Rand. If there is anything that both straight and gay people agree with, they agree that people should not be allowed to marry their couch, dog, front lawn, or their television.

Marriage is the union of two human souls.

A lady I know happens to be very wealthy, gay and Catholic. She's married to her partner who is Jewish. They've been together for over 15 years, and have 3 adopted children. All of their kids are straight A students, very respectful and kind. They smile, laugh, and behave like every other normal kid. Ben is from Asia, Will is African American, and their youngest daughter was born in Puerto Rico. They are a family.

Two moms or two dads are better than one or none.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Some people like to have sex

Some people like to have sex with animals. They could argue for equality, and that is OK, however, they should not adopt a child and tell them their cat is the mother.

such a bad line of reasoning

People screwing animals are doing it anyway. Marriage is a legal construct and animals cannot consent to legally binding contracts.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

Not really...

Emperor Caligula made his horse a senator, and most would argue that in order to do that you need to swear an oath to obtain an office in government, as well as fill out the necessary paper work. Don't underestimate how crazy things can get in politics, especially when most of the people running the country can't even square the difference between national defense and murdering teenagers with drones.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Rand's telling Beck's audience exactly what they want to hear.

Actually I would argue that Rand is doing some secret polling on a lot of these statements, because people I know who are anti-gay and WILL SHOW UP TO VOTE lapped all of this up. When I tactfully ask them how there is any equivalency between homosexuality and bestiality, I didn't get a rational answer per say, however, I have had conversations with a few liberals and libertarians of a very libertine mindset who don't see a problem with bestiality and wouldn't see a need to oppose marrying of people and animals.

This stuff doesn't necessarily just come out of nowhere, when you have people who say that all living beings are equal (people, plants, animals, et cetera), someone could deduce that this erases distinctions between persons and animals. I know some fairly radical vegans who might take issue with you defining marriage as a "union of two human souls" on the grounds that animals like wolves and hawks will mate for life.

Just for everyone's consideration. Have fun with all the pointless indignation.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

He already recognizes his own mistake and

walked his comments back. It was just stupid on his part and will be one of those haunting comments. Why the hell is he even talking to Glenn Beck? Nothing good can come from that guy anyway.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-walks-back-polygamy-com...

Rand Paul is taking a different route.

I utterly detest Glenn Beck, but at the same time, his audience votes in all of the relevant primary states. Ron Paul made appearances on his show despite being sand-bagged, but Rand Paul is going the typical politician route of being all things to all people, which is essentially what every president we've had since Abraham Lincoln has done barring maybe Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge (and even the latter was not always principled in his rhetoric if I recall my readings correctly).

I think ultimately Rand's problem is that he understands the depraved political culture that America has and is playing to it properly while much of his father's base is trying to cleanse it of its corruption. Rand is thinking short-term, while everyone here is thinking long-term.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Long-term, short-term, still very disappointing and concerning

The best explanation for making the statement is pathetic pandering to homophobes, which is inexcusable. Any other explanation is even worse.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Mark my words. Copying up to

Mark my words. Cozying up to the religious right is going to be Rand's downfall.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Yeah.

Yeah, because Ron Paul cozying up to Rachel Maddow really helped him big time in the Republican primary. (sarcasm)

On a serious note, why are people linking to Maddow's idiotic blogs? This woman absolutely despises us and sees the libertarian movement as little more than a convenient way to wedge two groups she doesn't like against each other.

I took pride in down-voting this post and hope others will too.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

It's not a matter of choosing

It's not a matter of choosing one or the other. Just stand for what is right.

Gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. No more, no less.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Yeah, but the problem is, you don't win the Republican primary by saying that openly. And if you want to try winning the Democrat primary, you have 3 or 4 state-worshiping socialists who will say the same thing as you and deride you as a heartless free-market guy clinging to your guns and you'll lose as well.

Standing for what is right in the present political climate is like standing on the Titanic while it's capsizing rather than getting on a life boat. In the words of Bane, "Admirable, but mistaken".

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Yeah, Maddow hates us, but the truth of the matter is this....

I'm a semi young person. I don't just hang around Libertarian minded people. I live in a very liberal city in a very conservative state. I work with people who range from 20 to 65. I go places where there are lots of young people. There is a change happening out here. The kids are waking up to all the government crap that's going on. Someone like Rand may have made them go out and vote. He gained tons of respect with his drone filibuster. They know all about the NSA and Snowden now. They want someone to come in and turn the government as we know it on it's head. Bad timing for Ron Paul. I wished these things were happening during the primaries. He may have had a chance, maybe not. But there are kids that are thinking Rand was different and they talk about him. Something like he pulled today is going to be a major turn-off for the younger people. Young people don't care if others are gay...and they are paying attention to Rand and he may have blown it today.

If one comment about gay issues sinks Rand.

Then you may as well right off these so-called youth voters as being morons, because they'll be swept up just as easily by another snake-oil salesman like Obama. Single-issue voters are, by nature, shallow and unreliable, and if they are willing to throw away the NSA and Snowden issue over a few words questioning the logic of enshrining homosexual marriage in the law of the state, they don't really care that much about Snowden or the NSA.

I myself am 33 years old and I supported Ron Paul both in '08 and '12 to the fullest legal extent financially, and I will tell you right now that if Rand does not win the presidency, it will not be because he has a problem with the so-called youth vote. I spent months upon months campaigning, including my own alma mater trying to sway the so-called young voters, and most of them were about as politically astute as Paris Hilton and as persuadable as chairman Mao.

The people that you are suggesting we rely on are the same people who are rotting their own brains out through their skulls watching reality TV shows like The Kardashians. Forgive me if my faith in them isn't terribly strong.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

My kids are very libertarian

My kids are very libertarian and they like a lot of what Rand does. But they love their gay uncle, and as long as Rand takes the troglodyte view on gay marriage he won't get their votes. They'll vote for a socialist Democrat first.

They're disgusted by the meanness of the anti gay marriage position. I think this is true of very many young folks who would otherwise consider voting for Rand.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Then your kids are not libertarian.

I'm sorry, but being libertarian and throwing the entire ideology out the window and voting for a band of socialistic tyrants because of one issue is a cop-out, though I don't doubt your honesty regarding how your children would react. That's kind of my point actually, the problem with the "youth vote" is that they are ultimately children, and they tend to reason as such when they vote.

There is ultimately a difference between being practical and being a fanatic, and what you've laid out for me here is fanatical behavior. I'm personally indifferent to the homosexual question, but when it comes to prudence and practicality within the political realm, what I've learned is that America is not a libertarian country, nor will it be if people continue adhering to it as if it were a religion.

America is on the fast track to becoming a 3rd world country under the current regime, and the so-called youth vote being swayed by the people who are causing it because of gay marriage makes me want to muse over writing off the youth vote. But one thing is for certain, nobody is winning the next election with the youth vote, and if I were a betting man I'd wager the ranch on it.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

The youth are idealistic

The youth are idealistic, and having a person in your life that you care deeply about, and is gay, makes this issue crucial. It's not about "marriage". It's about basic human respect. Once he is perceived as lacking that, he is done.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Yeah,

The complaint that Ron took the high road to little avail, so we shouldn't fault Rand for playing ball is misguided. Things are changing. Taking the high road and not playing politics, IMO, is getting more and more important. I'd hate to see this be too late for Ron Paul, and then Rand comes up short because he's giving lip service to the dinosaurs in GOP who's time has already come and gone.

Really?

Last time I checked, those dinosaurs are still running the GOP, so this is all hypothetical at best. Things might be changing, but not nearly to the extent that you may think they are. The statists still control the school system, and most of the people who are home-schooling are the same religious people who don't support gay marriage.

Furthermore, I'm not cutting Rand Paul slack because he's playing ball, I'm openly applauding him for playing ball precisely because that is how short-term victories will be obtained. Ron Paul lost because the country wasn't ready for his message, and it still isn't ready for it, nor will it be for the next 10 or 20 years despite my own hopes that it would have been ready in 2012. If you doubt me on this, ask yourself why gay marriage is a trump card that can automatically undo what Rand has done on the civil liberties side of things.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but gay people aren't the only people living in America. Think about it.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Perhaps

But I think things will change faster than that. Half these guys are geriatrics now, 20 years from now they'll mostly be dead. Are we making neocons at the same rate these days? Also, I saw Dr. Paul's campaign. Those 10s of thousands of young people are not going away and people are getting hip to the scams. They are getting involved in the election process before it's down to the Obamas vs Romneys. They're motivated, intelligent and starting to care. So, I'm optimistic despite how well founded your pragmatism is and it's still along way until 2016.