Gay Marriage

Rand Paul Reaches Out to Evangelicals over 'Moral Crisis' Connected to Gay Marriage

Is he shifting further to the right on the issue?


I've previously noted that Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz fundamentally have the same view on gay marriage (both are opposed; both want states to be able to manage law and ban). The difference between the two of them appeared to be that Cruz was more willing to make his social conservatism on marriage part of his platform, while Paul tended to bring it up as a response when asked about it.

Today, clips released from a prayer breakfast Thursday attended by Paul show his willingness to campaign on trying to appeal to evangelicals. David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network has some exclusive clips here and here.

Paul talked about how there's a "spiritual problem" behind America's woes and called for a new religious revival. And he's very explicit about his religious disapproval of same-sex marriage, tying it to a "moral crisis" currently taking place in America. Talking to his audience, he said, "The moral crisis we have in our country—there is a role for us to figure out things like marriage. There's also a moral crisis that allows people to think there would be some sort of other marriage."

That is reaching a little bit further than the Paul who wants to leave the matter up to the states, though he did tell his audience not to rely on Washington to deal with these matters for them. This is the guy who previously said he doesn't want to have to register either his guns or his marriage in Washington and said he doesn't think the government "needs to be too involved with this." Watch the clip yourself below and decide whether this represents another shift in Paul's positions. Or perhaps you may be more concerned about him saying we should keep government out of religion, but not keep religion out of government:

NEXT: Will California Let Marijuana Businesses Grow Big Enough 'to overly influence the regulatory process'?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If he'd left it at "I don't personally like gay marriage, but it's none of government's business", I wouldn't have to hold my nose very much to vote for him. But as long as he thinks te definition of marriage is government's business, and by extension the public's business, it requires more fingers to keep the stench out of my nose.

    The principle that marriage is nobody's business but the married partners inevitably leads to the idea that government has no business doing anything which depends on a definition of marriage. If he can't make that distinction, then he's a statist at heart. It may be a small state, but he still wants government to mind everybody's business.

    Still, if he's the Republican candidate, he'll be better than any Democrat, and I will *probably* vote for him instead of Gary Johnson, with the caveat that I live in California, and if it's still winner take all and The Democrat is assured of taking California, then I will vote for Gary Johnson.

    1. Yeah, he's starting to get less and less interesting. I knew he was going to do some pandering, but it's coming faster and worse than I thought it would.

      One thing I don't understand is why religious people demand secular punishment for people who break what they see as God's laws. If you believe God is all powerful, then He surely has the capability to exact the right punishment.

      1. Rand is desperate. His poll numbers suck and he is not pulling in the bigshit GOP money like Jeb is.

      2. One thing I don't understand is why religious people demand secular punishment for people who break what they see as God's laws. If you believe God is all powerful, then He surely has the capability to exact the right punishment.

        1) There are a fuck ton of people who claim to be religious who couldn't recite the two most important Commandments as explained by Jesus, let alone reciting all Ten

        2) There are an even bigger fuck ton of people who fall into the idolatry of worshiping America as the second coming of Israel, and eat up the "Christian nation" bullshit.

        3) There are a bunch of people very insecure in their faith (see Madison's Remonstrance)

        4) There are a bunch of people who are doctrinally fucked up, and don't understand that the whole coercing people to heaven thing has been tried since Constantine, and it's as heretical now as it was back then, and as it was during the Reformation, and as it was during the Social Gospel.

        5) There are a metric fuck ton of people who don't even put the thought into it that 1-4) require. They merely have a vague sense of morality, and the rest is TEAM.

        6) Just like the violence of the state is hidden to Progressives, it's hidden to religious Progs (SoCons) as well.

        1. The 2 most important commandments aren't included in the 10 commandments.

          That being said, the first 4 commandments better explain what "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" means and the last 6 better explain what "Love your neighbor as yourself" means.

      3. That's one concept of God, that he consistently intervenes. But, I would say it's not common. If that were the case religious people would think God would punish murderers while they sat on their couch, or God would provide them with food.

      4. I was really excited about him at first because of the filibustering (awesome!) and he seemed so good at being effective. He seemed to have the necessary cojones to get things done -- and look at how fast his rise has been -- I think because of that.
        Then he had that meeting with Carl Rove -- I had a sinking feeling -- and sure enough it all started to change.

      5. ^^This exactly. Leave your sky fairy out of my life. If "judgement is the lord's", you should have no concern that I'll get mine in the end

      6. All true moral imperatives are God's laws. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not murder," but we wouldn't legalize murder just to prove we're secular enough. Read a Christian libertarian. The real question is which rules can we morally enforce on others.

    2. Rand Paul is a huge disappointment.

      I am so sick of some of these social conservatives calling themselves libertarians.

      I agree with his namesake that anyone who thinks abortion should be illegal
      does not really believe in freedom.

      1. I think that including abortion in the libertarian purity test all but guarantees libertarianism lurking in the shadows of politics until the end of time.

        Your pro-choice compatriots are by and large totalitarians, and will never accept liberty. My pro-life compatriots are a mix of run-of-the-mill statists and some totalitarians. Liberty is less repugnant to pro-lifers in general than it is to pro-choicers.

        1. I think the rights of the life already in progress take precedence over the life of a few-celled creature not yet human who is basically a parasite until close to viable.
          Or until a brain and spinal cord is present, or until capable of -- blah blah blah -- whatever we can decide on - yes there has to be some cutoff point.
          But the right of the host life has to take precedence. Either that, or the principle of individual freedom and right to your own body is being violated.
          If you don't have a right to your own body, and all of its functions, then what other rights could you possible have?

          1. A baby is no less a parasite outside a mother's womb than in. So after the kid is born, the mother should be free to throw him into a dumpster right? The right to exclude from private property and all that.

            Also I suppose the fact that the mother consensually creates the parasite in the first place has no bearing on her duties toward it.

            1. quite a bit less actually. And the difference i provided by nature.

              Some kind of line has to be drawn and on some objective criteria in order that the prior right of the mother be given an opportunity to be exercised.

              To enforce a lifetime responsibility that has been unchosen and involuntary is to create a condition of involuntary servitude -- not really a great environment for a child. If you think sexual behavior should be tied to servitude in this punitive manner, then you are expecting religious notions to be enforced by the state.

              Doesn't anyone remember what it was like when we had black market abortion in this country? Laws that create massive black markets should be avoided.

      2. I would say excluding some humans from rights but not others makes rights irrelevant. After all, every totalitarian for the last 100 years believed in rights for all humans, presuming he got to define who was counted as human. I'm weary of anyone who tries to define "person," and by extension those with rights in a subjective manor. After all why can't anyone else remove certain humans from the person category?

        1. Life begins at conception. Any dehumanization that occurs once conception has occurred is entirely arbitrary, which is why it should not be permitted. If you're a libertarian, then you ought to protect all life.

          Marriage is a different issue, however. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that state governments cannot discriminate and that they must afford legal protections to all, which is why states cannot hand out marriage licenses to some while keeping them away from others.

          1. In what way is the egg alive after conception that it was not alive before conception? As soon as meiosis occurs, the egg is alive and has all of its various biological processes going.

      3. Abortion is largely orthogonal to a person's view on libertarianism.

        Abortion is about whether a fetus qualifies as a person whose rights should not be aggressed against, not about whether a person should have their rights aggressed against.

        I'm entirely pro choice, but recognize that it is asinine to question someone's libertarian bona fides because they are opposed to abortion.

    3. If he continues to move to the right in order to get votes then I for one will not have to hold my nose to vote for him, I won't vote for him. If he can't "make that distinction" on gay marriage as you put it and believe he's a statist at heart then voting for him encourages these types of moves toward statism. If he, and those like him, figure they can give up libertarian principles just a little to get the vote then they have taken you for granted and if we vote for him when he does, he's right. It makes him no better than any neo con or liberal democrat who will say anything to get elected. Cruz, Bush or Rubio, God forbid, may be better than any democrat, I'm not voting for any of them.

    4. Generally agree and also state that marriage status should in no way affect salaries, fringe benefits, iRS tax laws, etc. There are laws concerning the protection of the weaker member (economically and physically) of the pair (the female) and alimony, child support, etc that are needed and are totally irrelevant for same-sex "marriages." Legally, same-sex marriages do not therefore qualify as legal marriages, since the laws that define marriage don't apply. Everyone knows same-sex marriages are oxymorons , but no one has the guts to offend the morons by saying so - people don't want to get involved or appear to be a bad ass.

      1. "Everyone knows same-sex marriages are oxymorons , but no one has the guts to offend the morons by saying so"

        YOU have the guts, though, right? The guts to stand athwart history and yell stop! Good for you! Youll show those morons!

  2. It's issues like this that make me wonder how genuine Paul truly is when it comes to the issue of liberty and free association. He seems to be making an effort to attract the SoCon vote in order to win the (R) nomination for president. While I understand the tactical side of his current stance, it bugs me that he's either (a) willing to sell his soul for power, or (b) he genuinely advocates this garbage. Either way, this is another reason why I just don't trust the fucker.

    I know that's not a popular opinion on this website, but I have to be honest. Sometimes I think he's a statist wolf in Libertarian clothing. Sorry guys.

    1. He's not a statist. He wants the SoCon vote to get the nomination and somehow thinks this is how to get it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that ... I mean, I really think he could find better things to talk about to get the SoCon vote. Can't he just talk about the economy and cutting spending or something else that they might be able to relate to?

      I mean, Romney got the GOP nomination and as far as I can remember, he didn't talk to much about this issue. Maybe I missed it.

      1. As far as your critique about him getting the support of the SoCons, I agree. The gesture towards them seems self defeating on the national scale. There's a nearly endless plethora of issues he could focus on that SHOULD garner the support of the religious right. Why focus on this as a basis of his platform?

        I know this is wishful thinking. However, it would be nice if for once, the SoCons would hold their collective noses and vote for a truly Libertarian politician to combat Progressive candidates, as opposed to the much more common kowtowing reverse line of thought.

        Dream on, I suppose....

        1. Did SoCons vote for Ron Paul?

          Seriously, don't bother to answer.

          1. Despite my trepidations, I'll answer anyway. Given the fact he's a Senator from Kentucky, I'm willing to wager that 10's of thousands of SoCons voted for him despite the original platform he employed to gain his current seat. If for no other reason aside from telling Progressives to fuck off. Given the fact that the country is in essence Purple, this issue is a national loser.

            Weak sauce, Rand. You owe the (L) base much better than this.

            1. I get the feeling that he's trying to triangulate and find a third way. Even positions where he's lurched towards the GOP base (DoD budget, teh gheyz weddingz, IranSIS, etc.) he's tried to stake out a position that is innovative and more liberty friendly than any in his party.

              He's trying desperately to gain votes without losing votes because of his poll position. But he really shouldn't worry about that so much at this stage. Polls at this point are entirely name recognition.

            2. "Weak sauce, Rand. You owe the (L) base much better than this."

              The (L) base is a much smaller voter, money and volunteer support "base" than the socons are. And Rand can count.

              If you want to be listened to, you've got to show up with something other than bellyaching about ideological purity tests.

              1. Fair enough. Though to be honest, I don't consider it bellyaching. I consider it being ideologically consistent. A reach for any politician dancing on the national scale, for sure.

                Just to be clear, I'd consider his assumed presidency far better than anything we've experienced foramn near a century. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to criticize the finer points of his stance on national issues.

                Does that make me a insignificant member of the voting block? You bet. However, given it's an odd year for elected representatives, I feel entitled to bitch about the finer points. Come election day, I may just change my mind. Just letting off some political steam.

            3. everyone goes right thru thru the primaries and left in the general. its been that way for decades.

          2. Shit. I comment was geared towads Rand, not Ron. My bad.

        2. I agree.
          It is just so distressing to see the ideas of limited government and fiscal responsibility held hostage by the spirit of Cotton Mather!
          It's almost like a purposeful subversion to guarantee their defeat.

      2. He's not a statist.

        Damn straight he is. He think it's government's business to care about the definition of marriage, and he thinks it's the government's business to do things where the definition of marriage matters.

        IOW, he believe sin government minding everybody's business.

        I don't personally see any need for a military. But when people do, I don't automatically classify them as statist, because there is at least an argument that it is one of the few collective actions requiring a government.

        Requiring the government to care about things which require the government to care about marriage makes one a statist.

        1. "He think it's government's business to care about the definition of marriage, and he thinks it's the government's business to do things where the definition of marriage matters."

          He thinks he has to say what's necessary, when asked, to win the nomination.

          There are certain issues you can't be on the wrong side of to win the nomination from establishment Republicans.

          You can't be in favor of gun control and win the Republican nomination either.

          You can't be pro-choice and win the nomination.

          Why should it surprise anybody to see somebody running for the nomination saying what he has to say in order to win the nomination?

          Arguments are happening before the Supreme Court come the end of April anyway. If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is the law of the land, this will probably stop being a campaign issue.

          Meanwhile, Barack Obama thinks he should be able to use our future paychecks to guarantee the UAW's pension fund.

          Gay people's paychecks, too, if that makes you more upset about it.

          Where does Rand Paul stand on that issue?

          How 'bout Hillary? Will Hillary promise to never use gay paychecks to bail out the UAW ever again?

        2. How is wanting straight marriage any more statist than wanting gay marriage endorsed by the state.

      3. Go back to the Pat Robertson campaign. Robertson's people damn near took over the GOP because they got organized early at the local level and took over a bunch of county GOP organizations where 5 or 6 people was all it took to take charge.
        The SoCons learned how little it takes to get your hands on the levers of power, but you gotta get up early, stay focused, stay on the job. The SoCons hold a disproportionate amount of power in the GOP because they are the ones who show up first, stay the longest, work the hardest for the campaign - and you gotta be pretty damn ate up with it to give that much of a shit. The SoCons are ate up with organization and teamwork and working for the common good - it's what makes them a powerful force to have on your side but a nightmare to think of these busybody, goody two-shoe, buttinski, bluenoses getting anywhere near power.
        If you want to see Paul (or anybody else for that matter) pandering to somebody else, you're going to have to fight your way to the head of the line for doing the grunt work. As long as it's the SoCons doing the early work, it's the SoCons that get the pandering.

        1. Yes -- I remember when the Christian-right movement started and have been amazed to see how much power they have gotten through all the preachers and through this mistaken idea that they have to fight the left's idea of social engineering with the idea of "God-given" rights. Bill Buckley was part of that too.

          Religion head-fucks people so severely at such an early age that they are truly unable to think clearly. In my opinion. This is where Ayn Rand was great in redefining some of these issues.

          And Marxism and Progressivism are religions too, make no mistake.

          I'm too old now to start licking envelopes and making phone calls -- but I do think this has to be fought.

  3. Well, I've been complaining about Rand's pandering to the SoCons for a long time. Apparently, he thinks he has to do this to get the GOP nomination. I don't like it.

    1. I cringe every time I read something like this related to Rand...but, given the Freedom of Association impact of gay marriage, perhaps a reasonable trade.

  4. Before this primary is over, Rand will be calling for boots on the ground in Yemen, a federal prohibition of same-sex marriage, and a mass deportation of all illegals. His libertarian appeal is dwindling by the day. I hope this serial pander's campaign crashes and burns.


        1. It's ok when they do it.

          1. The gay rights organizations all actively supported Obama's presidential campaign anyway.

            I think I know what Rand Paul really thinks about marriage and the state.

            I'm also enough of an adult that I know he has to say certain shit.

            The gay rights organizations all understood that with Obama.

            Why can't we libertarians get our heads around that with Rand Paul?

            This is how elections are won.

            If Rand Paul gets elected President, it will be the best thing that's happened to libertarians since the fall of communism.

            1. Perhaps...
              Personally I don't know where he stands on most issues, considering that he's flipped and flopped so many different times on every conceivable issue imaginable.

              1. The old man may be turning into a pro-putin wackjob, but at least you know where he stood.

              2. Yeah, some people are surprised when politicians flip flop on issues.

                But the smart ones usually grow out of that by the time they're 25. Politicians appealing to the constituencies they depend on rather than rights and principles is why their power should be narrowed to as small a sliver of our lives as possible. Politicians flip flopping is to be counted on--not surprised by.

                But just for kicks, how long has Rand Paul said that he though that gay marriage should be decided state by state (like abortion) anyway?

                Hasn't it been for a long time?

                When Obama drew back from his disgraceful position--insisting that marriage could only be between a man and a woman--what, a full five years into his presidency? Hadn't Rand Paul been saying that marriage should be decided at the state level like abortion already--for a very long time?

                Specifically, when did Rand Paul flip flop on this (or any other) issue?

            2. I'm still voting for him, I'll say that much. If I were the director of his campaign, I'd advise him to say things a little differently, or avoid them altogether when possible.

              That being said, he needs to be careful not to alienate libertarians and younger voters. Because he pretty much has one of those groups in his pocket and the other in his grasp.

              The SoCons are a fading constituency. I don't really agree with what he's doing. I understand it, I just think he's a little off here.

              1. Let me add this. I want to explain why I'm going to vote for Rand in the primaries, and why I will vote for him in the general.

                Because he will be by far the most libertarian president of any of our lifetimes. Do I need much more of a reason than that?

                1. Yeah, it'll take more than this before I give up entirely. I agree with you on knowing why he's doing it, but also that he could do it in a better way.

            3. No one ever has the balls to put it out there in an effective way.

              1. I would rather vote for Matt Welch or Nick Gillespie for high office- definitely more effective messengers.

                1. What libertarians really think is often misunderstood by the general public.

                  If they really understood what we were about, though, they wouldn't vote us into office.

                  They'd come after us with pitchforks, torches, and rope.

                  Welch and Gillespie do a great job of preaching the libertarian gospel, and that's why I send Reason my money.

                  But they're not about to get elected by the general public either.

                  Someday, the general public may be more libertarian than they are now, and when that happens, maybe we can play the game straight and win.

                  But Rand Paul isn't about to win the Republican nomination by going hardline libertarian.

                  He has to convince Republicans that he's one of them. Once he gets into the White House, he'll be the Republican Party just like Obama is the Democratic Party. But Rand Paul has to win the nomination first, and if that requires him to say what Republicans want to hear, then by golly, I hope he tells them everything they want to hear.

            4. No it won't because it will lead to a further (and motivated) misunderstanding of what libertarianism is, and because the Right will just lay back and stop working to change anything.

      1. And he'll have to stay that way to get stuff passed and to win reelection. We'll coin an new name, LINO, Libertarian In Name Only.

  5. I'm increasingly leaning towards not voting at all anymore.

    1. Don't do that. I thought it was useless to vote in Maryland also. But I got a surprise when my vote actually counted in the recent gubernatorial election here, for the first time.

      1. No it didn't.

      2. Maryland's gubernatorial election shows what can happen when you have a highly-motivated voter bloc on one side, and a completely demoralized one, one the other. I guarantee you that every Hogan-supporting voter in Maryland showed-up at the polls, and that's what made the difference. Maryland's results also show the baseline for low-information Democrat voters, as well, because no one who paid any attention to the election voted for Brown.

    2. I believe I have a right to an abortion AND a gun!
      Who am I going to vote for?

  6. "The difference between the two of them appeared to be that Cruz was more willing to make his social conservatism on marriage part of his platform, while Paul tended to bring it up as a response when asked about it."

    That's kind of a big difference.

    1. To me, Cruz is way too personally unappealing.

  7. They thought it was a mohawk!

    I never had a mohawk.

    I was more of a liberty spike guy.

    1. Wrong thread.


  8. Completely OT: I'm aware that some of you are foddies. So, here's my dinner tonight.

    I smoked a turkey today. 20 lbs.
    1 stick of salted butter shoved up it's ass, another stick shoved into the neck hole. One more to stick to drench the skin and use a sinple salt and pepper dry rub foe flavor. Place in a smoker(using indirect heat, mind you)use a 50/50 ratio of charcoal and year old black cherry wood for the cooking/smoking process at 350 to 375 degrees. Flip the bird breast/topside down for the first three hours while keeping it in an aluminum/tin pan in order to catch the juices. Flip the bird over for another hour or so, then enjoy. It tastes so good, it will make your bollocks tingle.

    1. Holy fucking spell-check, Batman! Sorry.

  9. Did you see the same speech I did? You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

    Yes, he said it was good for Christians to participate in politics.

    Yes, he doesn't seem to think a union of two people of the same sex makes a marriage.

    But the overall thrust of this speech is to damp down expectations. Specifically, he told his audience not to expect too much from Washington. The answer to our moral crisis, he said, is a grassroots religious revival, originating from the people, not the government.

    I think his audience is going to get the message - Rand Paul agrees with them on a lot of stuff, and may make some effort on their issues, but it won't exactly be a priority. Therefore, focus on a spiritual revival outside of politics.

    1. I'm very interested by the idea that he's lying about his position in order to get votes.

      If (as I learn on H&R) the SoCons are trying to revive the pillory and the dunking-stool for women in skimpy bathing suits, and adopt the worst parts of The Handmaid's Tale, then they're not going to be excited by a candidate who tells them, in effect, not to rely too much on the government.

      And assuming he's pandering with this talk about not trusting Washington too much, that tells me that the SoCons are more anti-government than they're being given credit for.

      1. It just occurred to me - if women in skimpy bathing suits are dunked in the water, isn't that just encouraging them? I mean, they get to swim.

      2. And assuming he's pandering with this talk about not trusting Washington too much, that tells me that the SoCons are more anti-government than they're being given credit for.

        Surely you remember 2005-2008. When the prog-left so thoroughly convinced many a libertarian of a liberaltarian alliance being possible for they seemed anti-govt dissidents? And then they got their guy in the White House and they and the SoCons flipped sides like the second half of a soccer match and the prog-left became the "dissent is treason" crowd while the So-Cons turned into the insurgent rebel alliances.

        1. I was discussing the logical implications of calling Paul a panderer. He was talking about the limits of what Washington could do, and *if* he was pandering, it would follow that such talk was what the SoCon audience wanted to hear.

          The other possibility is that Paul was being sincere, and expressing views which the SoCons might *not* want to hear.

          Take your choice.

  10. If enough people would get behind Gary Johnson, they would have to give him some attention.
    That's what happened with both pauls --

  11. Nobody is going to win any elections pandering to SoCons. Fuck this Rand guy.

  12. There is a very serious moral crisis in this country: it's those on both sides of the political spectrum who think they can use government force to impose their preferences upon, or restrict the peaceful behavior of others.

    I'd love for Rand to be the candidate who stands up against that moral crisis. Two people of the same sex getting married? Sorry, nope.

    1. To me it is unfathomable why an individual would care so much what other people are doing in their private life. It is like, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

      The first requirement of living in a free society is that you have the COURAGE to tolerate the freedom of the ones you do not like!

  13. Disappointed in Rand's pandering. The appropriate response is that "marriage" is defined by the church one is "married" in. Government at any level does not belong. And I will get my pop corn out to watch the brawl between those churches that do bless/condone same sex marriage and those that do not. Can't wait for the SCOTUS battle of Church A vs Church B.

  14. Well, that pretty much does it. I've completely lost all patience with Rand Paul. Fuck him.

  15. The illogic in all this is that traditional marriage is defined by laws concerning child custody,alimony, etc. that were created with dependent wives and children in mind.
    None of this has the slightest relevance to a same-sex "marriage, in essence making
    such marriages irrelevant with respect to the state, which enforces the marriage laws
    and thus, in effect, defines the institution as far as the govt is concerned. Of course, things
    have changed with respect to wife dependencies. Married couples also are favored by employee benefits viv a vis single employees, a rampant discrimination. All in all, I would favor ditching
    all govt laws concerning marriage and thus removing govt from the picture. The mere idea of a "legal" marriage I find more and more ludicrous.

  16. NOTHING about gay sex or marriage should ever be equated to a moral 'problem' by ANY rational person. Ever.

    You may not LIKE getting fucked in the ass by a cock. Fine.
    You may not LIKE watching a man suck a man's cock. Fine.
    You may not enjoy imagining your neighborhood Lesbos eating each others cunt pies. Fine.
    You may be uncomfortable with your children seeing gay people kiss in public. Fine.
    You may avoid all sorts of strange experiences that upset your anti-homo radar. Fine.

    This is all feeling. And is normal and OK. However, you are NOT more MORAL because you are disturbed by that which makes you UNcomfortable. Humans can and should be allowed to be uncomfortable. However, morality has nothing to this with this in spite of the fact that the morality powerhouse claims otherwise.

    So, Fuck you Rand Paul. You are sucking the cock of the conservatives.

    1. Gee -- tell us what you really think

  17. It's sad to see the pandering. But, I don't think he promised any substantive policy change.

    He just decided that if he's to have a chance to win the nomination, he'll have to make the right noises to appease the many Republicans who care more about those noises than real issues.

    I'm still tentatively hopeful about him. He's not a perfect candidate, but he may be the best one with a chance to win.

    And, that's something.

  18. That dripping sound you hear is the libertarian moment going down the drain as we approach political reality. And it's only about 19 months before the 2016 election.

    1. It's not going down the drain at all. I see all this as very healthy --
      If you were old enough (Maybe you are, I don't know) to remember the days when such publications as this were mimeographed sheets being passed around among small groups of shy bookworms totally marginalized, etc. then you would see that this may very well be a movement whose time has come.
      Things as-they-have-been are in crisis right now. Both the mainstream Left and the mainstream Right are just about bankrupt of ideas and inspiration. The Petro-dollar system which is the vehicle of power is in crisis. All the tumblers are in motion.

      A lot will depend on what kind of leadership emerges.
      Certain ideas must be kept alive for the moment when opportunities arise.

  19. the more we learn rand paul the less there is to like. not super surprising. you cant forget 'that he wants to be president - of course he's an asshole.

  20. Rand Paul didn't have to become a political whore; he could have become an honorable libertarian senator. Dignity having been sold, there is no redemption.

    1. There's no point or profit in demonizing Rand Paul. I think he's sincere even though I don't agree with his Christian-Right bias. I think he's just trying to try a different tack (sp?) than his father did, and the guy is very capable. even if the Neocons are trying to capture him.

      I like Gary Johnson.
      But the Presidency isn't where the real power is anyway. Look at what always happens when they get in office.

  21. Saying there is a spiritual problem or moral crisis in the country isn't exactly sticking religion into government, especially since he isn't advising or suggesting he would do other than invoke Federalism to resolve same sex marriage

    1. Go ahead, say it all you want. Just don't put a gun to my head and tell me I have to obey your version of it....
      And a law is a gun.

  22. Come on guys, learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    I don't claim to know what Rand is thinking or where he'll wind up, but maybe he's like me. I want government hands completely out of pocket, my marriage, my bedroom, my everything. However, treating a clash between physiology and psychology as if it were not, is a spiritual blunder.

    I HATE the idea that I had to get a government permit and licensure for marrying my wife from Honduras in order to live together here, but I oppose government marriages licenses for ANYBODY and EVERYBODY.

    1. "...treating a clash between physiology and psychology as if it were not, is a spiritual blunder."

      not sure what you mean by that --


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.