Comments

  1. Bart says

    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.

  2. Hagatha says

    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.

  3. mikeflower says

    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.

  4. Steve says

    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.

  5. Anthony says

    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.

  6. says

    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.

  7. Swiminbuff says

    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!!

  8. Steve says

    @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.

  9. Chris says

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

  10. Craig Nelson says

    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:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/

    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…..

  11. Hamish says

    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.

  12. me_in_pdx says

    @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.

  13. Maguitac says

    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!

  14. simon says

    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.

  15. Rexford says

    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.

  16. Gerry says

    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…

  17. John says

    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).

  18. John says

    Previous comment say = see “… he cannot see the blatant hypocrisy …” sorry about that. :)

  19. Rich says

    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.

  20. BRAINS says

    You just have to look at this ignoramus and you know that within that numb-skull of his is a barren landscape. Be it inherited from his equally crazy father, compounded by his mother, or he fell on his head.

    Why can’t all Americans see through this nutcase!

  21. Craig says

    Well good luck, of course you won’t have a party left before much longer. People don’t like the hate. The younger people are, the less they support it. It’s over. Get on with life already. Why do you think 51 US Senators are behind gay marriage? They read the tea leaves. Keep going if you want to completely destroy your party, but a sane person would drop this.

  22. Steve says

    @Rich
    Even without Section 2, states still wouldn’t be required to recognize other marriages. Back in the 1930s, the Supreme Court created a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It allows a state to ignore any law from another state that conflicts with a clearly stated public policy. Such as a constitutional amendment. They are only required to recognize court judgments. Which is why adoption degrees are portable and one reason why second parent adoptions are recommended even in equality states.

    It’s all part of the excessive concept of American federalism and the constitution treating states as independent colonies instead of subdivisions of one country with limited power. Back in the 18th century that may have made sense, but today it’s simply impractical and unworkable.

  23. Michaelandfred says

    A state by state solution is no more sustainable than it was when Loving was ruled on. If the SCOTUS is ridiculous enough to allow this patchwork joke to play out it will only be for a couple more years and they it will be back in their laps and they will have to cupped their balls and make an actual ruling.

    Interstate commerce, the military, equal protect….you just cannot have people gaining and losing or being denied equal rights from state to state. They know that now. It’s why I think there is still a “chance” for a big ruling, regardless of what they would like or are scared to do. A 9 state solution will start an avalanche of new law suits from every conceivable direction, the military, the private and public sectors.

  24. e.c. says

    “…we can still win back the hearts and minds of people”

    Say what?!? Exactly what “winning” argument do you have to make people decide that EQUALITY is a bad thing after all? And since young people support marriage rights by something like 80% you’d need to actively turn a huge number of them against their gay friends and relatives. Good luck with that.

  25. Tarc says

    Paul’s as dim as a box of rocks and has one talent – insterting his foot in his mouth and chewing. What an embarrassment to his species!

  26. jamal49 says

    Hagatha, you point out something critically important. The majority of states’ legislatures are Republican-controlled. The majority of states’ governors are Republican. The result is that The House of Representatives is in Republican control and will stay so, thanks to the majority of Republican states’ legislatures gerry-mandering election districts to ensure Republican hegemony in each two-year election cycle for The House.

    LGBT activists for civil equality focus on the federal courts and the Presidency. The Republicans focus on where the REAL power lies, which are the states.

    Witness the barrage of states’ laws recently passed by majority Republican legislatures against women’s personal autonomy, or the failure to get sane gun regulations passed or the continuing denial of civil equality to LGBT people.

    This is where we lose the war if we’re not careful. I loathe Rand Paul and his brand of libertarianism which always claims that “these things are for the states to decide”. Rand Paul is right: control the states, control the power, and wait for attitudes to change back to what they were just ten years ago, if not 50 years ago or 100 years ago where women and gay people are concerned.

    Take nothing for granted, friends. Women and gays are living in fantasy land if they believe that we can’t lose this war against right-wing reaction. All it would take is this: a veto-proof majority in The House of Representatives, passing Constitutional amendments then sent to the states, which pass easily through Republican-controlled state legislatures garnering the required 2/3 majority to be inscribed into the Constitution.

    If you think this can’t happen, then you are NOT paying attention.

  27. kdknyc says

    I just can’t listen to this man–his hillbilly accent renders any IQ that he may have had, null and void. That he’s spouting nonsense, is a foregone conclusion when I hear that dim-witted accent. It gives decent intelligent Southern people (they do exist) a bad name.

  28. Billy Crytical says

    This has been the strategy on every gay issue. They want gay people to keep spinning their wheels.

  29. Rees Cramer says

    One marriage, if a heterosexual marriage is recognized by one state than it is recognized by all. So there for under the equal protection clause of the constitution, I may marry whomever I want.