Comments

  1. Steve says

    He is stupid beyond description. People like him would also be in favor of slavery and segregation as long as it’s the states who decide to have it.

  2. says

    “Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.”

    And that’s where Rand Paul’s education ended, just before the end of the American Civil War, civil rights and LONG before the end of miscegenation laws. What a fuckwit.

  3. Steve says

    In general, states need to stop pretending that they are independent countries. This isn’t the 18th century and giving tiny states so much local autonomy is impractical in a modern society. You can’t have legal contracts invalidated just because you travel from one area to another. Why bother even calling it “united” states?

  4. Paul R says

    It’s this: he can read poll results. He covers his bases by saying he doesn’t support same-sex marriage, but everyone knows what’s happening.

  5. nick says

    Who cares what this bad representative of the Hair Club for Men says? He is an absolute ass
    -but sadly he is on the high end of the insane meter in the RNC.

  6. nonapologies says

    Double-speak.

    So, equality is not about achieving neutrality of effect of laws, or more importantly, between actual living humans rather than some abstract in this guy’s head?

    If you start at the 50 meter mark, and I start at the starting line in a 100 meter dash, are the laws “neutral’ to ignore that fact?

    If a gay couple in New York state gets married, versus one in Kentucky, is the law starting at neutral by ignoring the fact that Kentucky will not recognize the marriage?

  7. Thomas says

    nonapologies–Awesome comment. I too am tired of the “let’s just get government out of the marriage business” position being used by some on the right now. Married straight couples would have no idea what hit them if they suddenly had to give up all the rights they’ve enjoyed.

  8. jeremyrain says

    I’m so sick of this arrogant SOB. He’s obviously still trying to cling into that anti-gay characteristic of his party and refusing that the wind has the changed the direction. I can’t not wait for the day Hilary Clinton whoop this spoiled politician’s child on the 2016 election.

  9. Lindoro Almaviva says

    I just have to laugh at the stupidity and the blatant double standard.

    Marriage: let the state decide,we do not want interference from the federal government.

    Guns: my local legislature better not even think about gun control. The second amendment clearly sys states need to stay off it.

  10. PAUL B. says

    One 80ft. piece of hair, wrapped around and around until it almost looks like a head of hair…almost. And all the while some gay person is up there wrapping angel hair pasta on Rand’s shinny little top.

  11. Rillion says

    Actually he didn’t say the federal government should be neutral on gay marriage but should be neutral on marriage. Basically rather than just have the federal government recognize a legal state marriage he just doesn’t want the Federal government deal with marriage at all rather than have it recognize something he doesn’t agree with, which is gay marriage.

  12. Dennis says

    And ye harm none, do what you will….what is main cause of the uproar about ” marriage “, gay or not? MONEY! I’m sure there are those who feel that it is for another ” cause ” but the main factor is financial gain, so if we take marriage out of the tax code and make code ” neutral “, then maybe this whole gay marriage would fade away and we could get in to more important subjects that truly does effect the price of eggs, and get away from these smoke screens topics, let people live there ” own ” lives, and let government do what it is suppose to, one of which is to stay out of our personal lives. Government is not God, and when it thinks that it is, all of us are ar its mercy, or lack there of, unless you have money…..how pathetically sad.

  13. Tothepoint says

    The Supreme Court determines constitutionality and nothing more and applies to the entire country. That is the purpose of the SC and they are the ruling member to make sure federal and STATE laws are constitutional. Rand Paul is another one of those repugs that thinks that they should have the power to overrule the SC and act as supreme beings. That is the mentality of someone losing ground while trying to force THEIR definition of religion on the masses…….the masses include Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, athiests and agnostics. Sounds like oppression and smacks of Nazism.

  14. Charles says

    To elaborate:
    What I’m saying is that if you feel that everyone should be PERSONALLY forced to accept your sexual orientation/race/religion/opinion/political affiliation, you ARE supporting TYRANNY.
    EVEN IF it is with good intentions. Because the precedent could easily be used to force you to accept a NAZI or other (insert POV here). That is why government should not be regulating moral issues of any kind, including this one.
    Let’s face it, this isn’t a race issue. Perhaps you can say that you are “born gay/lesbian” but you cannot prove it, otherwise they would have found a decisive gay chemical or gene that causes homosexuality, which they actually have not definitively done.
    Furthermore, with regard the the SCOTUS statements on child adoption/raising in homosexual homes, there are no studies on homosexual parenting that definitively show that homosexual couples are a good substitute or produce equally stable children(when both hetero and homosexual relationships are with responsible, non drug abusing parents are compared in proper sampling techniques). You could answer that there is no proof that they don’t either, but it is illegal to do experiments on children that may bring harm, and therefore it is valid to point out that it may be illegal to perform a study to prove that homosexual couples can raise equally stable adult children. As it may also be immoral and unethical to approve of such scenarios without knowing for sure. I have to say that legally, this is a valid point, but given this experiment is going on anyway, we may be the results proving that homosexual couples do provide equally stable homes for children. My point is that it is unethical to assume that they do without scientific evidence.
    Now I understand that marriage doesn’t require children, but i wanted to throw that in there.
    I’m trying to not be emotional here, and to look at this from a viewpoint in which everyone and all involved are ethically treated. I hope there are folks in here that understand that I’m not expressing an opinion, just pointing out the ethics and legal reasoning that is being considered.

Leave A Reply