Evangelical Christians | Evangelicals | Gay Marriage | News | Rand Paul

Rand Paul Has a Plan to Keep Marriage Debate Going for Another Couple of Decades: VIDEO


Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tells Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that conservatives cannot win a marriage battle at the federal level, so the only hope conservatives have to keep the "traditional" marriage debate alive is to keep marriage at the state level since certain states are likely to remain anti-gay for a long time:

"I think right now if we say we're only going to [have] a federally mandated one man, one woman marriage, we're going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I love the way this idiot tries to fool himself. What Rand will find is that it won't be marriage equality that will lose the hearts and minds of people, it will be his ignorance and regressive stupidity that is becoming passé.

    Hey Rand, want to know why the Republican party is a joke among most Americans? Take a good look at yourself in the mirror. Most people hate you and the repulsive, disgusting ignorance you stand for. Congratulations! Your side is dying off and withering away.

    Talk all you want, you're going to be nothing but a laughingstock footnote in the history of this country.

    Posted by: Bart | Apr 6, 2013 5:08:25 PM

  2. Bart - Hate to burst your bubble of overconfidence there buddy, but your claim that "most Americans think the Republican Party is a joke" is not supportable with fact.

    Thirty states (that's a majority) have Republican governors.
    The US COngress is majority Republican.

    Posted by: Hagatha | Apr 6, 2013 5:15:40 PM

  3. How come no one questions the fact that a gay man was responsible for Ron Paul's rebirth as a presidential candidate & that he died w/o health insurance of PCP.

    Posted by: mikeflower | Apr 6, 2013 5:20:22 PM

  4. LITTLE KIWIs wish came true. Son of Pastor Rick Warren commits suicide.

    Posted by: Ant | Apr 6, 2013 5:20:45 PM

  5. The Canadians have the far better system. Marriage is both a provincial and federal matter there. Same-sex marriage got started when a couple of provinces legalized it and eventually the federal government stepped in and passed legislation covering the entire country.

    The American way of complete deference to the states is silly, considering how many federal laws deal with marriage.

    Posted by: Steve | Apr 6, 2013 5:26:32 PM

  6. The Canadians obviously have a better system because marriage has been legal there for a decade lol. Unfortunately, the entire country is less than the population of California.

    Posted by: Anthony | Apr 6, 2013 5:32:27 PM

  7. So when Section 3 of DOMA falls and gay couples in some states have full equality and gay couples in other states have no equality, he thinks that ridiculous patchwork is constitutionally and culturally sustainable for another couples of decades when the next generations see marriage equality as a given? Ha, good luck with that, dinosaur.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 6, 2013 5:32:45 PM

  8. With people like Rand around it is hard to imagine that Abe Lincoln would want to belong to the "party of Lincoln" if he were alive today.
    Perhaps Rand would like to bring back slavery or repeal womens sufferage? I am sure there are probably a couple of states he could get to sign up for that too. Talk about being on the wrong side of history!!

    Posted by: Swiminbuff | Apr 6, 2013 5:35:35 PM

  9. In your guts, you know he's nuts.

    And I'm a Republican.

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | Apr 6, 2013 5:47:28 PM

  10. @Anthony
    No, that's not the reason. Aside from their Bill of Rights being far newer and thus guaranteeing more rights, the way they go about federalism is simply much, much smarter. America has always and will always be be held back by its more primitive states and the federal government not being able to do much to keep them in line. Canada has a system that allows for local autonomy (and it did allow provinces to legalize SSM on their own), but they can't just do whatever they want either.

    Posted by: Steve | Apr 6, 2013 5:49:25 PM

  11. I wonder how long he had to keep telling himself that in order for him to actually believe it?

    Posted by: Chris | Apr 6, 2013 6:00:19 PM

  12. Wow, he's really good (from a GOP perspective) and aiming to be the GOP presidential candidate and why not?

    He's setting his stall out early - getting rid of DOMA and allowing "20-30" states to retain opposite sex marriage only.

    But just look at Nate Silver's model of where each state will be in 2012, 2016, 2020:


    Look at the states he's conceding - basically one ends up with the states of the confederacy plus a few others (including Kentucky). It will look mighty strange set down on a map of the Union.

    PS Iowa is 22nd from the bottom for support for same sex marriage in Nate Silver's ranking (and already has same sex marriage) so.....

    Posted by: Craig Nelson | Apr 6, 2013 6:07:42 PM

  13. Posted by: Swiminbuff | Apr 6, 2013 5:35:35 PM

    Lincoln did not belong to the Republican party we know today. In the 50s and 60s, the parties more or less switched. Today's democratic party is much more inline with the party Lincoln belonged to. Only the name has remained the same.

    Posted by: Hamish | Apr 6, 2013 6:10:21 PM

  14. @Hagatha the reason Congress is (at least the House) is Republican is not because the majority of people voted for them, is because the Republicans did some MAJOR Gerrymandering. Go do some research and open your eyes.

    Posted by: me_in_pdx | Apr 6, 2013 6:39:10 PM

  15. Aaaah, nothing wins peoples' hearts like persistent blind illogical unfounded hatred and homophobia.

    That disturbed twit is in no way a "conservative". Most conservatives I know are accepting and loving parents to gay and straight children. They in no way would opt to have their children grow-up as second-class citizens in their OWN country.

    Just stop hiding behind your interpretation of christianity Rand, and admit that you simply don't want to allow any of the LGBT community the same rights as the straight couples do. Simple and honest, just say it!

    Posted by: Maguitac | Apr 6, 2013 6:41:28 PM

  16. a living example of pseudo-libertarianism.

    Posted by: oc | Apr 6, 2013 6:53:02 PM

  17. "a living example of pseudo-libertarianism." Exactly. Most of the Libertarians I know are actually very open-minded in terms of gay rights.

    Posted by: MuscleModelBlog.com | Apr 6, 2013 7:02:42 PM

  18. It's just cash for him.

    Posted by: barney | Apr 6, 2013 7:38:37 PM

  19. He is too optimistic. As Craig mentioned, polls show by 2020, there will only be 5 or 6 states left. But Repubs have their own polls. That's why they think Romney was winning up till the very last moment.

    Posted by: simon | Apr 6, 2013 8:15:33 PM

  20. So basically he's admitting that it will be over in 25-30 years? Gee, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. After all, that's when most of the dinosaurs... errr... people who are 60+ and currently against SSM will be dead.

    Posted by: Rexford | Apr 6, 2013 8:42:42 PM

  21. I'm still hopeful that SCOTUS will do the right thing and throw Prop 8 out because of equal protection. It really is all up to Kennedy...

    Posted by: Gerry | Apr 6, 2013 8:45:58 PM

  22. I just don't understand how he cannot say the blatant hypocrisy of espousing Libertarian principles on the one hand and then saying that the government should interfere on such a basic personal level in the lives of people.

    I guess he's a typical politician in that regard (i.e. hypocritical).

    Posted by: John | Apr 6, 2013 9:42:06 PM

  23. Previous comment say = see "... he cannot see the blatant hypocrisy ..." sorry about that. :)

    Posted by: John | Apr 6, 2013 9:43:07 PM

  24. Yes, Republicans, please keep digging!

    Posted by: JJ | Apr 6, 2013 9:47:15 PM

  25. The problem with a state-by-state solution rests with the limitations on full faith and credit embodied in Section 2 of DOMA, which relies on a questionable interpretation of Article IV Section 1 (to my knowledge, this question is not currently before the courts, though I believe SCOTUS could decide that Section 3 is unconstitutional and that DOMA's sections are not severable).

    The stakes for couples are too high to have a legal regime that says they are married in State A but strangers in State B. A Reno divorce is valid in St. Louis, and a New York marriage needs to be valid in Phoenix.

    If 25 states don't want to issue marriage licenses, I'm fine with that. The Respect for Marriage Act gets us 98% of the way. Unless the Supreme Court moots the issue, that should be our next goal.

    Posted by: Rich | Apr 6, 2013 9:54:42 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «A Preview of This Year's Broadway Bares: VIDEO« «