Gay Marriage

Is Rand Paul Really Worried About Inter-Species Marriage?

No, but his party sure seems to be. And that's a problem even for those of us who aren't Republicans.

|

In the wake of yesterday's rulings on same-sex marriage, conservatives and Republicans are mostly grumpy, if not apoplectic.

Then there's Rep. Justin Amash, the Michigan Republican, who took to the Facebook page where he concisely explains all his votes and positions.

A lawyer by training, he eloquently stated,

Marriage is a private institution that government should not define. To me and millions of Americans, marriage is also a religious sacrament that needs no government approval. As a conservative, I will continue to push for less government interference in our personal and economic affairs.

Among Republicans, Amash was pretty lonely in his limited-government sentiments (which are properly understood as libertarian, not conservative).

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), a Baptist minister and recidivist presidential candidate quoted the Bible via Twitter on hearing the news ("Jesus wept.").

Retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) declared that "No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted" before getting effectively jerk-stored by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). When asked about Bachmann's reaction, Pelosi responded, "Who cares?" When you get smoked by Nancy Pelosi, it really is time to hang it up.

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer took to Twitter with a passion that eliminated all nuance or sense of perspective. Yes, he even invokes Hitler and the Jews:

HItler: Jews are "enemies of the human race." Scalia: majority has made supporters of marriage "enemies of the human race."

(Somehow I'm betting that Fischer is going to skip that touring production of Bent.)

So what about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the "libertarian Republican" (his term) who is a leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 and the clear leader of the ascendant libertarian wing of the Republican Party?

Earlier this year, he told a rapt audience at CPAC that "The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere." A few weeks ago in a Twitter chat, he told Reason readers that "states should be able to craft their own drug or marriage policies, instead of the federal government."

Yet in an appearance yesterday on Glenn Beck's radio show, there was this exchange between Beck and the senator. For context, it's worth noting that Beck went out of his way to say that he is not against state recognition of same-sex marriages. He's just asking questions…:

"Who are you to say, 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," Beck added.

"And I think this is a conundrum," Paul said. "If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans? You know?"

"The question is what social mores – can some social mores be part of legislation?" Paul asked philosophically.

Read more or listen here.

Later in the day, he appeared on Fox News and walked back his earlier comments. Via Mediaite, here's a writeup and the video clip

"I think this is a conundrum. If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans? You know?"

"I think my point that I was trying to make is that government has been involved in marriage for a while and it's been at the state level," Paul told [Fox host Megyn] Kelly. "I think if we leave it at the state level, there will be room to disagree." He clarified, "I don't think it will be with multiple humans and I think it will be human and human."

"I don't think we're going on towards polygamy or things beyond that," Paul continued, "but I do think that our country is divided on the issue and that in some ways, the Supreme Court decision is probably going to allow us to agree to disagree." He predicted that while some states like New York may move forward with gay marriage in the short term, others in the south will not for the "foreseeable future."

In comments to USA Today, Paul emphasized the decentralized approach—and his opposition to gay marriage:

"The good side to this ruling is that they have affirmed to states that this is a state issue and states can decide," he said, offering this message to people who oppose recognition of gay marriage: "The battle is going to be lost at the federal level. Concentrate on your state."

To ABC News, he praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding "a cultural war."

"As a country we can agree to disagree," Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. "As a Republican Party, that's kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues."

The comments from Paul, a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016, highlight how the party's field could divide over  gay marriage. Many Republicans have been unusually muted in their reactions to the Supreme Court rulings today.

Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called "someone who doesn't just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion." He said Kennedy "tried to strike a balance."

There's no reason to doubt Paul's commitment to pushing the definition of marriage down to the state level. To be sure, it's not clear that the states are the appropriate place to make this particular decision. Apart from technical questions about how, for instance, states with differing definitions of marriage would adjudicate competing claims, if a right is central to human flourishing, then it need be respected at all levels of government, especially the federal one.

But let's skip that question, on which lots of people can disagree, for the moment. Rand Paul's immediate reaction flies in the face of what I, following Forbes' James Poulos, called the Kentuckian's "Hipster Outreach Mofo Party Plan," which smartly focuses on lifestyle diversity not just as a given in any political movement but a strength:

"We need to be like the rest of America," Paul told the gathering. "We need to grow bigger. If you want to be the party of white people, we're winning all the white vote."

"But we're a diverse nation," he said, to a crowd that was almost entirely white. "We're going to win when we look like America. We need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to with tattoos, without tattoos, with pony tails, without pony tails, with beards, without."

The Republican Party also needs (openly) gay members—and, as important, voters who might well agree with most or all of the party's rhetoric about smaller government but are put off by what they rightly see as revanchist attitudes toward alternative lifestyles. There's a palpable—and largely correct—feeling that many leading conservatives and Republicans would love not simply to scotch all this talk of marriage equality but any "normalizing" of homosexuality or lesbianism as a sexual preference. Cue Huckabee, Bachmann, the American Family Association.

That backward-looking feeling gets in the way of the central political message that Rand Paul and other libertarian-leaning conservatives and Republicans are selling as the best way forward not just for the GOP but the country. A majority of Americans think that same-sex marriages should have the same legal status as man-woman couplings and, as the College Republican National Committee's recent report stressed, younger voters see attitudes toward same-sex marriage as a "deal-breaker." That is, Millennials are less likely to vote for a candidate they agree with on most issues if he or she is against marriage equality. From a strictly tactical perspective, if the GOP wants to be the anti-gay-marriage party, it will diminish its future prospects.

More than any other politician on the national scene, Rand Paul has consistently argued for limiting the size, scope, and spending of government during his short time in office. No one, including such a civil libertarian stalwart as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), has been more effective in pushing for constitutional limits on state power used at home or abroad in the name of the "War on Terror." The reason Paul is the leader of the rising libertarians in Congress—and drawing sad-sack attacks from scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and writers at National Review—is precisely because he is holding the conservative movement to its stated rhetoric of minimizing goverment across the board. Most Republican get the vapors the minute that cuts in defense spending or old-age entitlement reform are broached. Not Paul.

It's good that he clarified his position during the course of the day, but Paul's immediate reaction to the Supreme Court ruling is at odds with his expansive view of a party that needs "to be like the rest of America." In an age of prolonged recession caused by government interference in the economy, of prolonged overseas wars caused by government recklessness in both articulating and prosecuting foreign policy, and of prolonged deficits caused by an inability to reel in the size, scope, and spending of government at all levels, Rand Paul has the right message and the right solutions. Trepidation about gay marriage, or pot legalization (another issue that has majority support), or other social issues just shouldn't figure into his discussions about paring back the state.

For the past decade, a majority of Americans agree that "the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." That same majority thinks that marriage equality is OK. The first national politician who seriously and credibly fuses those two sentiments into a coherent platform will transform America—and in a good way.

NEXT: Ritalin May Cure Cocaine Addiction

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. God dammit. I want to love this man (not like that), but he keeps pumping out just enough stupid to throw me off.

    For one thing, how can a non-human consent Mr. Paul? I’ve never heard an animal say anything close to “I do”. Yeah, yeah, gorillas can sign, but that’s not very different from a dog begging for food.

    1. The explanation, from his office:
      Sarcasm sometimes doesn’t translate adequately from radio conversation. Sen. Paul did not suggest that striking down DOMA could lead to unusual marriage arrangements. What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei…..radio.html

      1. If it is just sarcasm, which I believe it is, it’s also a stupid, bush-league thing to say. He just handed the left a whizzer to use against him at some later point. If he gets painted as a wingnut socon kook, he only has himself to blame.

        1. He just handed the left a whizzer to use against him at some later point.

          They’re already getting to play that clip of him on Rachel Maddow talking about the CRA on a 24/7 loop for the duration of the 2016 campaign, if he can even get the nomination. It would be nice if he could avoid giving them any more ammunition, but unfortunately everyone slips up once in a while and says something that can be taken out of context and used against them.

          I’ve already mentally prepared myself for Hillary in a 50.1-49.9 percent “landslide” anyway.

          1. It could be an interesting point of strategy, maybe the SoCons will sit there going “this guy is one of us, but he got bullied into toeing the line on gay marriage.”

            I don’t think his personal opinion really matters much so long as he believes it’s not the fedgov’s responsibility to pick and choose which state affirmed marriages it’s going to respect.

            1. That’s true for people like you and me. A lot of people are not going to feel that way. The comment itself is what matters and it was an incredibly stupid thing for Paul to say. This won’t hurt him (and who knows, maybe it helps) in the primaries, but if he wins the nomination, rest assured that this comment will be brought up time and time again by the media (along with his comments on the CRA on the Maddow show)

              1. I’m surprised there isn’t a team of Republican strategists running around screaming “the phrase ‘man on dog’ is what got Santorum Santorum’d. DON’T DO IT.”

                Maybe I should start a consulting company and provide this service for a small fee.

            2. Rand may feel that he needs to retain the SoCon vote and indulges in pandering (as his father did on occasion). Just being “engaged” with that crowd exposes him to their rhetorical nonsense (DOMA protects against people marrying their dogs).

              Rand seems to have a lot of good sense on what contributes to or harms his credibility. Unfortunately, he isn’t very good at censoring his own rhetoric in a SoCon-friendly setting.

      2. That makes absolutely no sense. Senator Paul needs to stop playing politics with this issue. The Government has no legitimate right to favor opposite sex marriages with special benefits, or any other relationship for that matter. That is the source of the controversy. Paul’s position on this favoring “traditional” marriage is revolting for anyone who claims libertarian principles. He’s a bigoted coward on this issue and should stand with human beings who have been abused by government for something as personal and private as sexual preferences. Get a clue Rand.

        1. Paul’s position on this favoring “traditional” marriage is revolting for anyone who claims libertarian principles.

          there is a difference between holding an opinion and wanting to use govt to make that opinion into law. It’s not always about what a person thinks, it’s about whether they think govt force should be used to make everyone else think it, too.

          1. You are right. But, if you are suggesting that Paul is merely musing about his personal beliefs, I disagree. He has clearly said he thinks the battle on this issue should go on in the States and someday, when conservatives can win, return the battle to Washington. Don’t do a politician arguing for discrimination any favors by attributing a position to him contrary to his own statements. Paul is reprehensible on this issue from any libertarian perspective.

          2. You are right. But, if you are suggesting that Paul is merely musing about his personal beliefs, I disagree. He has clearly said he thinks the battle on this issue should go on in the States and someday, when conservatives can win, return the battle to Washington. Don’t do a politician arguing for discrimination any favors by attributing a position to him contrary to his own statements. Paul is reprehensible on this issue from any libertarian perspective.

            1. Yeah, wanting to preserve some semblance of the 10th Amendment. What a cunt!

              If the fedgov wasn’t in the business of handing out cash and prizes to people based on their willingness to sign on the dotted line and only fuck one person the rest of their lives, this wouldn’t even matter. To the extent that the government should sanction marriages at all, it certainly shouldn’t be the fedgov that does the sanctioning. Centralizing authority and handing out favors to certain people in certain kinds of relationships should be reprehensible to libertarian principles regardless of which group, or set of groups, gets to the be the recipient.

              1. No, what makes him a cunt on this issue is that he’s clearly in the camp of denying gay people the right to engage in contracts that straight people are allowed to. It’s a bigoted position and Shanghi is correct as far as I’m concerned.

                As for settling it at the federal level, there’s a strong case to be made that bans on same sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, so you’re “But states should get to discriminate if they want to” fails on a Constitutional basis. The Constitution didn’t stop with the first ten amendments.

          3. agree

        2. He’s repeatedly said he supports the DOMA decision. His personal opinions may be dumb but they have nothing to do with using government force.

    2. My dog would absolutely consent to marry me. All I’d have to do is offer it some pork.

      And that, is what this is all about peeps. Gays want bennies. From the feds, the state, and corporations.

      Interestingly, in my experience most of the Fortune 500 companies I know of have de facto acknowledged gays with their Bennie packages. Believe it or not making the list of ‘gay friendly workplaces’ is as important to many companies as ‘military friendly workplaces’.

      Just good PR.

      But I’d say 99% of this ‘equality’ BS is simply a hunt for handouts.

      1. Define “Handouts.” Job benefits are not handouts.

        1. Married folks also get preferential tax treatment. They can file jointly, they can claim certain deductions that singles can’t. In fact, the case that went to court was over whether a surviving partner could “inherit” a house from the deceased partner without paying a huge tax on it.

          Then there’s survivor benefits from SS and federal pensions (if either person has these). The artificial financial changes that occur when two people marry can be complicated and quite significant.

          1. They can file jointly, they can claim certain deductions that singles can’t.

            Please name them. I just got married and our taxes went up. If you are DINKs it can be a tax penalty.

            Which is not to say there aren’t benefits but that isn’t one of them. There’s no marriage deduction.

            1. Home sales tax and estate tax deductions. You can lump them in with “filing jointly” if you want. I realize marriage doesn’t always reduce taxes, but it provides new filing options without taking away the old ones.

              1. That’s not a handout though. Taking less money from someone is not the same thing as giving them money. Though I agree the tax code should be marriage-neutral

              2. The estate tax is a massive one but its not really a deduction. The home sales tax is nice but I wonder if two single people sell a house together if they can each deduct there own half of that amount. They certainly could if they sold two separate houses. Filing jointly is often a nice way to combine things to your advantage but two single people could do something similar if done properly.

                In any case most of the marriage advantages in your yearly filing come in when one spouse doesn’t work or you have kids.

                1. The estate tax avoidance is sufficient reason as far as I’m concerned to allow gay people to marry.

                  I’m willing to bet that none of those assholes in California who voted for Prop 8 had thoughts of giving up their ability to duck estate taxes. Typical of the hypocrisy of religious folks who think they have a right to dictate others personal relationships.

      2. You married Anders? You ok with straight marriage or are they just on the hunt for “handouts”?

        1. Well, I don’t think marriage and gay ‘marriage’ are analogous and I do think the main driver for those striving for ‘equality’ (bogus term) in this are essentially after bennies.

          Note the DoD’s move to immediately get to work on that ultra pressing issue…

          1. I see. Would you be willing to concede that gay couples might see their relationships as analogous to straight relationships even if you do not?

          2. What difference is there between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple that makes any actual (and by actual I mean stuff that happens in the real world, not superstition or bigotry) difference to anyone else?

            The only argument that I can see for hetero-marriage that makes any sense is that it is for procreation, but infertile people and people that just don’t want kids are allowed to marry, so I don’t think that argument holds much water.

            1. Encouraging procreation isn’t a proper role of government either. And in this day and age, with in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and adoption, I don’t think it’s a relevant objection even if it were

              1. I certainly agree it’s not much of an argument and that government shouldn’t be encouraging or discouraging procreation or any particualr familial arrangement. It’s just the only one that makes any sense at all.
                I think government should either recognize the marriage of any two consenting adults who want to call themselves married, or get out of it altogether.

              2. It’s only about encouraging procreation if you compare it to a regime without marriage. Marriage complicates law, so it needs to pay the law back in some way for the inconvenience. The way it pays it back is that marriage is the least legally messy way for children to be accounted for.

            2. the difference is one of possibility versus impossibility. An infertile couple “could” produce offspring. If they do, the marriage framework defines their responsibilities. Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

              1. An infertile couple “could” produce offspring.

                Then they wouldn’t be infertile, woudl they? Let’s say both parties have had their gonads removed entirely. Then there is no possibility. But no one objects to them getting married if they are opposite sex.

            3. True Zeb. And the real question is why is government involved in marriage at all? There are a number of reasons – and opinions.

            4. Infertility has long been a reason for annulling a marriage.

              1. Yeah – but it’s never been a reason for denying someone the ability to marry…

      3. But I’d say 99% of this ‘equality’ BS is simply a hunt for handouts.

        I’d call them “benefits” instead of “handouts”, but I agree. In principal the government should not treat any marriages differently. It should treat them all as equal contracts. That being said, the government also shouldn’t be treating married people differently from unmarried people.

        1. That being said, the government also shouldn’t be treating married people differently from unmarried people.

          And this is where the “marriage equality” thing goes to bullshit. Expanding the group of people who get to experience the government’s beneficence and thumb their noses at the rest of the red headed step children by 1 is no more “equality” than giving every black slave his own Chinese slave would have been “equality”. Equality is when everybody is treated, you know, equally.

      4. Gays are paying for the “bennies” that are handed out to heteros… why shouldn’t they be eligible for them as well? It’s as though some people forget that gays are Americans (and taxpayers to boot.) Now, if the Feds want to eliminate the privileges they afford to straight couples and treat everyone equally, that’s fine with me. But granting an entitlement based on the gender makeup of participants in a relationship implicitly declares other relationships less valid.

        1. IOW, as long as some taxpayers are getting fucked at the expense of others, you may as well expand the group of fuckers in some marginal sense by adding an extra class of people to the group, because the fuckees are already getting fucked anyway, so what’s it to them?

      5. That was my thought too. Why wouldn’t someone sue for some benefit based on inter-species marriage? The question is what it always has been: What is marriage for? Because if there’s no other answer than to force others to treat 2 entities as 1 legally, then bring on the inter-species marriages.

        1. Can your dog enter into a contract? Oh, that’s right – it can’t…because it’s a fucking dog…

          The inter-species slippery slope bullshit is the dumbest argument I have ever heard…

          1. It won’t be the dog that’s seeking the benefit, any more than the baby applies for applicable benefits.

            1. Is a baby a legally consenting adult capable of entering into a contract? Oh, they aren’t. Is a dog capable of entering into a contract? Oh – that’s right – that one was already answered… Do either of the above pay taxes? Of course not. So how does any of that have fuck all to do with marriage between two men, two women, or a man and a woman?

              1. You’re assuming your criterion is the only one that will decide the issue. That’s not the way these things work. You institute things on one basis, the pivot foot gets dragged, and soon the basis is forgotten or relegated to 2ndary status. Like laws against child pornography, conceived as a protection of children, later being used against minors producing porn of themselves.

        2. More importantly why not bigamy or polygamy? They are all consenting adults. Why should the government deny them the right to get married? Because marriage is between TWO consenting adults? That’s just as arbitrary as claiming that marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, from a pure basis of tradition polygamy has a more robust social history than gay marriage. I don’t have a problem with the ruling -aside from all the entitlement goodies that will now be distributed- but I don’t understand any logic that limits marriage to simply two adults if gay marriage is now the law of the land.

          1. but I don’t understand any logic that limits marriage to simply two adults if gay marriage is now the law of the land.

            Because… because… EQUALITY FOR TEH GAYZZZ!!!

    3. But do you need the animal’s “consent” to own him, neuter him, or enter him into some competition (as long as you don’t hurt them or something)? As far as I can tell, any legal contract that concerns pet ownership involves humans.

      Love is love, they say. And pets certainly provide affection to plenty of humans, so interspecies marriage isn’t so outlandish, if the definition of marriage can be constantly redefined. A marriage to your dog could be modified version of your current pet ownership. If bestiality (not beastiality) is legalized, then nothing more needs to be said.

      If you’re a pure as snow libertarian, then you support SSM, polygamy, cousin marrying, prostitution, election spending, or anything that consenting adults do that doesn’t hurt someone else. But that’s obviously not going to play well with typical voters from both sides, no matter how much they clamor for “equal rights”.

      “Getting the govt out of marriage” will gain more support as other (exotic) forms of marriage inevitably earn SC approval and the public begins to wonder just what the limit is.

      1. “Getting the govt out of marriage” will gain more support as other (exotic) forms of marriage inevitably earn SC approval and the public begins to wonder just what the limit is.

        It is going to be delicious to watch all the socons clamor to close down the government marriage racket they’ve been supporting as a holy sacrament laid down by jeebus himself once the shit that the government is sanctioning starts hitting high numbers on their “ick” meter.

    4. my best friend’s sister-in-law makes $78 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for six months but last month her pay was $19923 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.wep6.com

  2. “If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further ? does it have to be humans? You know?”

    Vampires? Walkers? Skitters? Wookies? Gay penguins? What’s next?

    1. Your mom?

      1. What, my mom no longer counts?

        1. I’m tired of her at this point. You know what I mean.

    2. No, no, Epi, to have any rights an organism has to have that magical Human DNA(tm), often mentioned here but never defined in any meaningful way.

      Alien contact would be good in that it would make many heads asplode.

      1. Damn, that was supposed to go under Epi’s alien comment below. Squirrels. Or perhaps Alien Squirrels.

  3. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Glenn Beck,”If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further ? does it have to be humans? You know?”

    *sigh*

    Do we care?

    1. I do. I care if we add more spouses to the entitlement role who never contributed to the program, i.e. SS half benefits. And since we’ve decided that same-sex marriage is an arbitrary criterion (it is) then the ban on polygamy is equally arbitrary which means even more dead weights sucking at the government tit…

  4. So…if there were aliens, we’re not allowed to marry one? Says who? Star Trek takes a dim view of Rand’s statement.

    1. Captain Kirk would have been paying close attention.

      1. I want Uhura and that green beyotch some planet whatever…..

    2. I get Ezri and you get Kurzon, right?

      1. Does that count as sloppy seconds for you, Hugh?

      2. I don’t understand your DS9 references, Hugh. If you’re going to talk to me, you need to talk about real Star Trek, not “Hawk in space” Star Trek. SPENSSSSEERRRRRRRRR

        1. Sorry, Epi, you’re right. Do you want to marry the villain from the Nazi planet, or the villain from the hippie planet?

          1. Nazi’s had style, as well as, basic hygiene. Just sayin’ ….

          2. Don’t humor him. He’s just upset no one calls him his main man all the time.

          3. Oh, oh! Hippie planet! His ears were the dreamiest!

        2. Fuck Star Trek. Give me real drama.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cq-PvPD8FQ

        3. Hey, I’ll hear nothing bad about Hawk. He’s a righteous dude.

        4. Heretic! DS9 was the most character driven installment of the franchise, you soulless minion of orthodoxy!

          1. Seconded! DS9 wasn’t just a ship flying around all the time. You had important political situations, hell, you had a full blown war. Them not making a feature film of DS9 was a huge mistake.

    3. I’m pretty sure this guy would also object to not being allowed to marry an alien.

  5. God dammit Rand. Stop pandering. Isn’t Beck a libertarian? He should be fine with this decision.

    1. Is Rand Paul pandering? He says he favors “traditional” marriage. Personally, I think he is a dangerous religious nut. No real libertarian would allow the state to favor one romantic relationship over another, particularly given the discrimination gays have suffered for decades. He may be getting the Moral Majority’s vote, but he’s not getting mine.

      1. No real libertarian would allow the state to favor one romantic relationship over another

        Which is why you support doing away with state sanction of relationships, right? Since it’s inherently discriminatory and arbitrary, and deprives people outside of whatever relationship status is the current cause celebre of their money and dignity? I mean, you’re principled, right? It’s not like you only give a fuck about gay monogamous relationships being given a gold star by the central government. You’re not a dangerous moralizing nut like those narrow minded pricks who only give a fuck about straight monogamous relationships being given a gold star by the central government.

  6. Rand’s point is important to his constituents. Kentucky has a rich Scottish, and Scotch-Irish heritage. I’m sure many of them are looking forward to the day when the relationships between man and sheep will be formally recognized by the federal government.

    1. BAH!

      1. EWE!

    2. What happens if you cross the Rolling Stones with a Scotsman?

      Instead of “Hey you, get off of my cloud” you get “Oy, McCleod, get off of me ewe”.

  7. There’s a palpable?and largely correct?feeling that many leading conservatives and Republicans would love not simply to scotch all this talk of marriage equality but any “normalizing” of homosexuality or lesbianism as a sexual preference.

    This is a good point.

    The comments about Rand are kind of silly. He made a comment that he then backed away from and it’s just not that outrageous of a quote. No one can speak at that level without making the occasional off tone remark.

    1. I’d like to know your reaction if he were to compare your loving, committed relationship to fucking a Cocker Spaniel. The remark wasn’t off-tone, it was revealing and in-line with similar comments made previously. While I applaud Rand for much of his rhetoric, I fear that he is as much a politician as any other person serving in the Senate and equally willing to cash in his principles in exchange for whatever bump in the polls it might yield.

      1. It seems to be Gillespie who wants him to cash in principles for a bump in the polls.

      2. Just curious, but when has Paul made comments in the past comparing gay marriage to bestiality?

      3. If I thought it was an off hand remark, I wouldn’t take it that seriously.

      4. I’d like to know your reaction if he were to compare your loving, committed relationship to fucking a Cocker Spaniel.

        I’d be fairly embarrassed that I was so goddamn stupid I interpreted a comment that said nothing of the sort as some sort of comparison of my relationship to fucking a Cocker Spaniel.

        Also, I don’t need a team of cheerleaders, IRS agents, family court judges, and other assorted important people in suits to validate my relationships, so even if someone had actually said that, I still wouldn’t give a shit.

  8. Pander to the right-wingers on the right-wing talk show, then walk it back in the mainstream press. Tell everyone what they want to hear.

  9. Unfortunately, this is a disaster.

    Of all the stupid things Santorum had to say in his life, the one that destroyed him was when he said that gay marriage was like marrying your dog.

    This is going to get pinned to him even more than the CRA thing.

    This was an incredible error. All he had to say was that now the states would decide, and that conservatives needed to take their battle there. In other words, what he’s said before. Why go off script?

    1. likely gone native a bit. you start walking the halls as a senator and you start to think your’s doesn’t stink.

    2. Rand was speaking to Western Iowa where the SoCons reign supreme in the caucus process.

      1. The thing is, he managed to piss off both SOCONS and gay rights people (and by that I’m not just talking about left wing Democrats, but also a lot of moderates and libertarian-leaning people) in one day. Hard core SOCONS don’t like that he thinks the decision was the right one, and obviously gay rights people aren’t going to take kindly to a comparison to bestiality, even if it was sarcasm (and I don’t think Paul actually thinks homosexuality is just like bestiality, but that doesn’t matter)

        1. One thing that makes Rand interesting is that he doesn’t lie as well as most politicians. So his attempts at pandering always fail ugly.

  10. It’s inevitable that somebody will say something inartfully. Only leftists get a pass from a compliant, sycophantic media. Get used to it, and get over it.

  11. Children are not consenting adults. Animals are not consenting adults. Groups of three or more wanting to share romance and rights can file an LLC. I don’t understand why we’re still even entertaining this conversation anymore. It was stupid the first time it was uttered, and it’s only progressively more stupid every time some idiot tries to argue against two adults entering into a legal partnership by equivocating that with marrying children and/or animals. You’re either a massive troll douche, or an ignorant moron who shouldn’t be voting or participating in civilized society. If you want to have religious objections, fine. If you still have some sort of social ignorance about gay people being otherwise equal human beings, hopefully you’ll figure it out soon. But stop saying stupid shit like this.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. And if the problem is the tax breaks, or the benefits, or whatever other red herring the socons throw up to pretend they just think gays are icky, then change the criteria to something that doesn’t depend on your marital status. Or eliminate social engineering through tax policy altogether.

      1. *don’t just think gays are icky…

      2. Great. Except the libtards won’t allow that, so the two are completely linked. I don’t have a problem with gay marriage but I can’t see why the definition of marriage is now moved from one arbitrary condition: a man and a woman, to another arbitrary condition: two consenting adults, and yet more than two consenting adults are still outlawed. If you’re going to be intellectually honest I think you either have to state that marriage serves a biological purpose, i.e. procreation or you have to admit that the definition of marriage is completely arbitrary and there should be no definition of it beyond a requirement for consenting adults.

    2. Gays can form an LLC. You defeated your own argument. As long as all of the consenting parties are adults why is marriage still limited to two people? We’ve established that procreation isn’t the requirement for marriage. Why is a duo? Face it, the definition of marriage is arbitrary. That means that what is “right” is simply what you believe which is really little better than religion no matter what your final cut-off point.

      Again, for the record, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, but I can’t justify a ban on polygamy either. Rand took it to the incorrect extreme bringing in animals, but I think the polygamy question is extremely appropriate.

  12. Why shouldn’t you be able to marry your dog, or your 100 concubines? Of course, by “marry” I mean that you decide for yourself you go around putting rings on your fingers (?) and calling each other hubby.

    However, tax breaks, medical benefits, immigration benefits, etc. are only legally protected for one other, designated, legally registered adult of either sex (unless we change the law).

    1. we’re already changing the law to the part where it includes “adult of EITHER sex.” It used to be of the opposite sex. You mean govt may not stop at that point?

      1. No, I’m suggesting that federal and state benefits should all be expressed in terms of legal domestic partnerships between two adults. I’m also suggesting that the word “marriage” and assumptions about what people do in marriage should disappear from the law altogether.

  13. Nah he should have said something more libertarian like get rid of the IRS, SS, Medicare, all regulations, public schools, shut down all military bases everywhere. Wouldn’t sound crazy at all!

    Among Republicans, Amash was pretty lonely in his limited-government sentiments (which are properly understood as libertarian, not conservative).

    So anarchy is no longer libertarian?

    1. How did you get that out of what Gillespie wrote?

  14. we’re in low info-ville. Whether it was sarcasm, a throwaway, or something else is immaterial; it will be used time and again. And he’s not the only person on the right to have gone that route. As wounds go, this was both self-inflicted and totally preventable.

  15. I happened to hear him on NPR a few minutes ago. After talking about the immigration bill (during which the interviewer was already acting like an ass — “You said Republicans have to appeal to Hispanics, so why won’t you vote for it even though you just told me exactly which points you object to?”), the interviewer asked him about his reactions to the gay marriage rulings and then tried to go after him on this. Paul was very firm (but not nasty) about this quote not having been about DOMA, having been a hypothetical about “what would happen if the states made no laws at all” and such. It was kinda lame, and I think there’s no question he put his foot in it (at best) on Beck’s show, but he didn’t sound weaselly or sniveling about it at all, at least.

    He also did an above-average job saying he personally believed marriage was one man, one woman, while talking up the federalist angle, etc., with a fairly hostile questioner.

  16. Typical of the state of contemporary political debate that when Rand tries to take a moderate stance on this issue and go on the the things he deems important – liberty, the debt, etc. – he’s denounced as a bigoted extremist. A bad joke doesn’t make you a homohating fanatic, it makes you the utterer of a bad joke.

    He’s seeking federal office, and he wants the definition of marriage to be by the states. He even convinced himself (or professes to be convinced) that the Supreme Court has made a federalist decision focusing on the rights of the states (I don’t think this is true, but it’s a nice moderate interpretation). He’s willing to throw the relevant section of DOMA overboard. Yet he’s an “extremist” because he doesn’t want the feds to force a uniform nationwide definition.

    It’s one thing not to pander to the SoCons, which Paul clearly isn’t. But to take the next step and piss over them and ask them to vote for him anyway, isn’t going to cut it, no matter how many people here think that’s a good idea.

    1. It’s one thing not to pander to the SoCons, which Paul clearly isn’t.

      Rand Paul not pandering to SoCons.

      1. To be strictly accurate, I was talking about his position on marriage. If he were pandering, he’d criticize the USSC decision, not try to spin it as pro-federalist.

    2. I think the vast majority of people (especially on this website) criticizing him over this are criticizing him primarily for the bestiality remark, not for his preference to have marriage laws decided by the states. Had he not said that specific line, people wouldn’t be talking about his comments

  17. “‘We need to be like the rest of America,” Paul told the gathering. “We need to grow bigger. If you want to be the party of white people, we’re winning all the white vote.’

    ‘But we’re a diverse nation,” he said, to a crowd that was almost entirely white. “We’re going to win when we look like America. We need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to with tattoos, without tattoos, with pony tails, without pony tails, with beards, without.’

    The Republican Party also needs (openly) gay members?and, as important, voters who might well agree with most or all of the party’s rhetoric about smaller government but are put off by what they rightly see as revanchist attitudes toward alternative lifestyles.

    *sigh*

    1. Why can’t we tell the truth? The truth that Libertarian ideology only really appeals to white people. It doesn’t appeal to very many blacks, mexicans, or tattooed people. It doesn’t appeal to many single mothers or homosexuals. And it’s not because of these social issues. Look at the polling data, Mexicans are just as likely to agree with Democrat economic policies than Democrat immigration policies, and they rank the economic issues as more important. And certain people will always see small government ideologies as “revanchist” toward their “lifestyle,” because their lifestyle is impossible without other people’s money. Telling me to have personal responsibility? You hate my lifestyle!!

      Why can’t we be the party of white people in business suits, the people who built this country?

      1. Since when is Libertarian synonymous with Republican? Fuck off American

        1. The discussion I quoted is about the Republican party. Rand Paul is a Republican. For all their declarations of distaste for the Republicans, Reason puts a lot of effort into convincing them to become more libertarian. Is there anything factually inaccurate in my comment? Was I mistaken in stating the most Hispanics agree with Democrat policies?

          1. Check the first line of your second comment dipshit. Getting amnesia?

            Most Hispanics don’t vote. Less than a fifth of Hispanics voted for Obama (and even if we only include eligible voters, less than half of them even voted, compared to two thirds of white and black eligible voters). Most who do vote vote Democrat. So? Ethnic and racial voting patterns aren’t set in stone. And have you ever considered the possibility that if you are a Hispanic immigrant or the child of Hispanic immigrants, and you perceive one party as being anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc. that you might be more inclined to reject other parts of their stated philosophy (such as free markets, although most Republicans aren’t sincere in that belief)? Look at how the Asian vote has changed over the last twenty years – in 1992, a majority voted Republican, in 2012, they voted for Obama in greater percentages than Hispanics did. Republicans don’t need to win the Hispanic vote (and indeed, Obama still would have won in the electoral college even if not a single Hispanic voted in the election) – they just need to not get slaughtered. If they can get back to the 60-40 split that happened in 2004, they’ll be fine.

            1. Gary Johnson is one of the few (possibly only, depending on who you include) libertarians to get elected governor in recent history. He was elected in the most Hispanic state in the country, and in the 2012 election, his share of the Hispanic vote in New Mexico was double his share of the white vote (6% to 3%. That’s pretty good for a third party candidate)

            2. The reason many Hispanics don’t vote is because many of them are illegals. The ones who don’t vote tend to be poorer and even more messed up(drug users, single mothers, domestic violence problems, ect), than the ones who do. What are the chances that, if they did vote, they would vote Republican? Asians aren’t really comparable. In a democracy, people vote their race and religion, not their ideology. After twenty years, the Asians have developed more racial consciousness. In addition, they live in Democrat areas and thus are affected by liberal ideology. However, they are less likely than Hispanics to support socialism and much less likely to be dependent on it. Their family values and work ethic fit with Republican, not Democrat, ideology. Thus their votes are mailable. I predict they will come home the next time there is major race riot, it will probably be too late at that point. However, the Democratic party is made for Hispanics. They support it’s policies, they are dependent on it’s policies. So, by all means, we should try to convince Asians that their interests are with White America, but that ain’t going to work with Hispanics. Sure, the Hispanics see us(Rightwingish folks) as racist. Why? Because, “they gonna take away our benefits.” “They gonna make us pick cotton.” Capitalism is racism. Didn’t they teach you that in college?

              1. I would argue that, in the immediate sense, improving our share of the white vote, specifically the white working class vote, is more important than the Hispanic vote. Which do you think would be easier, raising the Hispanic share by 9% of the white share by 1%? Real Clear Politics has a good article on the real reason Romney lost here.

                1. There’s a limit as to how much of the white vote Republicans can realistically get. I don’t think it’s much greater than 60% and white turnout is still relatively high, in the mid 60’s. In an electorate that’s, say 60% white and 40% minority (and we’re probably only a couple decades away from that. General demographics are almost that ratio exactly), if Democrats get 80% of the minority vote, they need less than a third of the white vote to win the election. Do you think Republicans can really get 70% of the white vote? They’re already doing far better among whites than they were in most decades past. And younger whites are obviously not voting Republican in greater numbers than older whites are, so it’s only going to become more difficult as time goes on.

                  Did you actually read the RCP article? The whites they describe don’t sound like diehard capitalists to me

              2. “The reason many Hispanics don’t vote is because many of them are illegals”

                This is idiotic. Legal, non-citizen immigrants can’t vote either. And did you not read the part where I said that even among eligible voters, less than half vote? I guess your white skin doesn’t really help your reading comprehension.

                “However, they are less likely than Hispanics to support socialism”

                Citation? And if, as you say, people in a democracy vote based on race and religion, wouldn’t this mean that Asian racial consciousness is even stronger than Hispanic racial (or rather ethnic, as Hispanic isn’t a race) consciousness since they voted Democrat in greater numbers? So how does that make them easier to convert? Are you capable of making a coherent, consistent argument?

                “Their family values and work ethic fit with Republican, not Democrat, ideology.”

                Hispanics don’t work hard? They don’t value family (and single motherhood rates are not a good barometer of how much a group values family)?

                “They support it’s policies, they are dependent on it’s policies.”

                If you think the reason blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat in the numbers they do is simply due to welfare, you’re not very smart. Are those groups disproportionately on public assistance (excluding SS and Medicare, the most expensive programs, which aid the elderly, who are disproportionately white)? Yes, but does that explain why over 90% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics vote D? No, not that many of them are on welfare.

                1. As I said, it’s a lot easier to portray free markets and capitalism as bad when the party that is supposedly the party of free markets is perceived to be racist and xenophobic. Is that perception entirely fair? No, but many Republicans have done themselves no favors over the years in countering it. And white kids also learn in college about how capitalism is evil and only benefits rich people. Should Republicans stop trying to get their votes?

      2. Actually it does appeal to very many homosexuals (just not of those who make a big deal of their sexuality) and tattooed people, but your point is well taken. This is not the case in all countries, but will be true in those where demographics correlate strongly with redistribution. We didn’t make this political reality, we just have to live with it.

        1. It was made by the Great Society.

      3. Business suits suck. A necktie is just a convenient handle to grab when punching someone’s face in. Also great for getting caught in machinery.

  18. I think it should be noted by you hard core libertarians that what you are arguing and what SCOTUS ruled is whether government privileges should be granted to another group. True libertarians should not feel that government should be involved in this at all. Justifying two wrongs to make a right has no logical validity. Would you argue that preferential treatment in government contracting should be awarded to Polish Americans because it is sometimes awarded to African Americans? Let me answer that. No. This is the same thing.

    1. The libertarians who support gay marriage as some proxy for “equality” are not one iota better than the socons who they claim “hate teh gays because they’re icky!” There’s absolutely no other case, as you point out, where libertarians by and large are willing to sell out a broad principle (opposing government involvement in personal affairs, opposing centralization of authority) for a narrow advancement of a particular group (TEH GAYZ CAN GET MARRIED!!one11!!eleventy!!).

  19. Stand in front of “socons,” pretend to understand “socon” arguments and perspective, you are “pandering to socons.”

    Stand in front of gays/blacks/mexicans pretend to understand gay/black/mexican arguments and perspective, you are “appealing to gays/blacks/mexicans.”

    See hoe that works?

  20. What an appallingly stupid thing to say. After all the progress and good will he’s generated lately he just flushes ALL of it down the shitter.

  21. You seem to be criticizing Rand Paul’s willingness to think about various issues together systematically, his ostensible lack of political opportunism.

  22. Just appalling, what you think people will start thinking of their pets as family members, children. Jesus H. Christ what next leaving pets in their Will?

    1. Next thing you know, people will be getting upset because the cops shoot their dogs.

  23. Go look up the documentary “Zoo”. Tehre are people dead serious (pun intended) about animal love rights.

  24. Rand Paul is a fucking idiot. Story at 11.

    1. Tony is a vacuous cunt who can’t string together 3 coherent sentences he hasn’t copied off a Democratic Underground discussion. Footage nightly.

  25. It’s beyond laughable watching Reason Magazine suck the dick of Rand Paul at any opportunity until it is completely dry. Rand constantly shows his statist socon side, and Reason tries its hardest to downplay any fallout against their favorite politician.

    1. and using glenn beck to spread his message is one huge red flag

      1. Granting new authority to the federal government to define which relationships qualify for the grab-bag of goodies and prizes they hand out if you agree to fuck the right person for the rest of your life is freedom.

        De-centralizing authority over an issue the government shouldn’t be involved in in the first place is statist.

        War is peace!

        Freedom is slavery!

  26. Honestly I don’t understand whats so libertarian about supporting gay marriage. The only libertarian position on this is to get government out of marriage period. Demanding that government recognize a new definition of marriage, and to write that into law, is no more libertarian then demanding a law to protect traditional marriage.

    I think the only reason some of you support this is because it has become very fashionable to do so.

    1. No, the libertarian position on this is to not allow gov’t, whether by statute, judicial fiat, or plebiscite, usurp the customary meanings of non-technical words in legal documents.

      The reason a lot of libertarians support same sex marriage is too superficial analysis. I was in favor of “marriage equality” too when I 1st heard of it in the 1990s, because I hadn’t thought much about the issue.

      You could see the same phenomenon in drug re-importation.

      1. “No, the libertarian position on this is to not allow gov’t, whether by statute, judicial fiat, or plebiscite, usurp the customary meanings of non-technical words in legal documents.”

        How is that libertarian? The libertarian position would be for the government to not define such terms in the first place. And customary meanings and definitions of words can change, and they are. The job of the government isn’t to protect traditional meaning of words.

    2. You must mean, then, that libertarians have to support abolishing marriage. Because marriage without government is just a word people can call themselves. The issue isn’t really marriage, it’s equal rights. And if you can’t put aside utopian masturbation for long enough to take the side in favor of equality under the law, then you’re as useless as you seem.

      1. Marriage, even as a legal concept, can exist without marriage licenses

      2. Once again, Tony proclaims that if government doesn’t do it, it doesn’t exist.
        He truly is the dumbest of fucks.

        1. He must have a tumor in his brain or something. Government funded tumor, from all the fluorinated tap water.

      3. Giving group A benefits because you like the kind of relationship they have while treating everyone else differently is no different than giving group A and group B both benefits because you like the kind of relationship they have while treating everyone else different, and neither is equal in any philosophical or legal understanding of the term.

  27. You really have to have some sympathy for RP.

    He’s a libertarian but he’ll never, ever have a shot at national office running for that party. So he has to toe the line with the GOP and the Libertarian base (hello half of Reason.com).

    Both groups are just waiting to gang rape him without even having the damned courtesy to offer him a reach-around.

    FWIW, I suspect RP simply doens’t care about gays at all. As in has no opinion either way.

  28. Yeah, maybe it’s genetic. I remember Ron Paul would sometimes say something that would result in him getting him hell for it and some outrage junkies would pump it up. I would *know* what point he was trying to make, however badly. But words are what this culture crucifies you for.

    Maddow would find him saying something utterly absurd or badly worded as a reason that he should forever be disqualified and ridiculed to no end yet have no problem voting for someone who doesn’t believe in due process, killing people with drones or trying to control people under the guise of altruism. Or if something equally absurd were uttered by a well-meaning leftist, all is forgiven.

    I think the point made here by some is a good one. That point being: regardless of what a person believes, does it really matter as long as they don’t want to use government, aka the initiation of the use of force to push their beliefs? Why does anyone have to kiss anyone’s ring and endorse activity pro or con, of a private matter?

    1. Why does anyone have to kiss anyone’s ring and endorse activity pro or con, of a private matter?

      Because… because… BIGOTRY! YOU HATE TEH GAYZ! CHRISTFAG!

  29. This just goes to show you that trying to find a compromisr between liberty and a religious bigot will just leave you gasping and looking like a fool. Amash nailed it.

    1. There’s only 2 things I hate. Fucking judgmental, moralist bigots. And those goddamn religious cunts.

  30. Abundant baby white basic are printed on blush affection longchamp canvas bag, which reinterpreted the appearance elements of the world-famous activated TV alternation “The Flinstones” in 60s and already afresh proved the adventurous and amusing architecture agreeableness of Jeremy Scott.Jeremy Scott accelerating from the acclaimed appearance architecture institutes longchamp handbags sale Pratt Institute. This ability designer had set up his own appearance cast in 1997 if he is alone 21 years and bound became acclaimed in Paris. He was acutely impacted of accepted ability and created a bulk of abominable appearance masterpieces with distinctive, adventurous and avant-garde style. As a accomplished and affecting artist, Jeremy Scott has abounding successful cooperation acclaimed entertainers and acclaimed appearance magazines. Aback 2006, he has maintained abutting co-operation with the Longchamp.

  31. Limiting government is a libertarian action that can only be accomplished by elected limited government conservatives. Unless government is limited no belief, preference, value, faith or priority is secure. Including Libertarianism. Being entirely unable to limit government in any way is the main reason why 3rd parties are a liability on liberty rather than a constructive means of defending it.

  32. La nation actuellement des dizaines (travail sur les tournois), Dodgeball vous tactique pour triompher principalement parce que vous l’affrontement autres dojos ? travers 2 des foules, vous devrez remplir le bien-?tre du club 5.
    New Era
    New Era France
    Casquette New Era
    Ray Ban 2013
    occhiali Ray Ban 2013
    occhiali da sole Ray Ban

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.