FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/26/2013 5:41:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here's The latest in the continuing saga of Rand on the Skywire, trying to inch along the tightrope between libertarians and conservatives towards the GOP nomination on the other side.
Love him or hate him, the 2016 debates will be roughly 8,000 percent more interesting with him onstage than they would be otherwise.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. 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.”…
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.”
Many social conservatives won’t be happy to hear him talking about leaving things to the states, and they really won’t be happy with him waving off the culture war, but they were never Paul’s target constituency in the first place. If you’re a young, bridge-building, aspiring GOP nominee, the politic answer here is obvious: Support traditional marriage at the state level and oppose any lawmaking on the subject at the federal level. Be a socially conservative small-government federalist and hope that both social cons and moderate/libertarians each cut you enough of a break on your middle-ground position that the Skywire doesn’t sway too much. That’s the smart play for someone in Rand’s position (at least until he makes it to the general, when any misgivings about gay marriage at the state level will begin magically to melt away). Just one question: Does he support state traditional marriage laws at the state level? I honestly can’t tell. This morning he told Glenn Beck this:
“I think traditional marriage laws are now affirmed in 34 states,” the Kentucky Republican said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning, calling it the “good side of the ruling.”
So he does support them. But wait — a few months ago, he said this:
Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
As I said at the time, that’s the sort of thing you often hear from libertarians who want the government, and not just the federal government, out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think Rand could get away with that position in a GOP primary, which is why I assume he’s still nominally in favor of state marriage laws. Whether he’d have an Obama-esque “evolution” in support of liberalizing those laws to include gays once safely elected, though, I leave to you to decide.
Via Noah Rothman, here he is with Beck having a not-especially-libertarian exchange about whether legalizing gay marriage necessarily means legalizing polygamy. Beck’s more concerned about that than Paul is — Rand clarified what he said here about non-humans later in the day, in fact — but he does seem to see some hazy role for government in legislating morality. Some of his dad’s fans won’t like that, but plenty of mainstream conservatives will.
Update: A “wacko bird” divergence:
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8:
Today’s Supreme Court decisions on marriage are a regrettable overreach against the will of the people as expressed through large, bipartisan majorities in Congress and directly through referendum in California – a markedly blue state.
Nothing in the Constitution compelled this result, and, once again, the Court has chosen to substitute its own views of public policy for the democratically expressed will of the voters.
The family is the fundamental building block of society, and I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.
Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.
Rules-based, like our Constitution, I can live with that.
What I see today, the whole gnashing of teeth and spitting nails, is exactly what happens when gov’t gets too big and is no longer held to those ‘base rules’. Sucks, eh?
We (the People) have allowed the courts to allow the Fed to social-structure using the tax code and (Unconstitutional) bennies, then wonder why the courts say “Nope, even out the field, apply it to ABC, XYZ, etc.”
Gov’t, at any level, has no business defining/regulating marriage. All else falls into a contractual basis with an easy solution: Wills. Otherwise, can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.
Yeah, the need for marriage "law" is universal, not just in Greece and Rome and Europe, but among primitive tribes and other civilizations.
""Ironically, the whole idea about government involving itself in a religious institution like marriage is tied to this country's roots as a Protestant nation.""
That is ridiculous, you just threw out thousands of years of history. Government or controlling authority has always been involved in the legality of marriage.
While 1854 is pretty recent when we are talking about thousands of years of marriage laws, did you know that the GOP was founded partly on fighting marriage laws of the Apache Indians, and the Joseph Smith cult (Mormons)?
Exactly. When the heart of man is turned from God, no law will restrain him. Because the people in this country (Rom 1:28) "did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper".
It will devolve into pan demonium.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". Samuel Adams
Homosexuals cohabitating is not marriage. It has never been marriage since the beginning of time. This because it is disorder, it is unproductive, it is illogical, it is divisive, it is hateful. Marriage for homosexuals is an offensive farce.
Any person who cannot distinguish this is given over to a depraved mind.
We can agree with that as an expression of our angst, but knowing it won’t save American culture and society, we still have to figure out a way to fight this abomination.
What happened is that libertarianism and the leftists, have moved America so far left in the last 50 years, that the real Americans are too vastly outnumbered, and the left/libertarians are winning the culture.
This was yet another victory for libertarians and leftists in their war against conservatism, America, and God.
I have no idea what this means. I pretty much consider myself a libertarian and I believe in one and one one rule: leave me alone.
All else is superfluous.
Hank
I’m good with that. Thanks. :-)
The (L) party has had NO effect on the national scene. Your OWN GOPe party has sided, willingly, with the DEMs to sell out We the People at every turn.
Rubio, Graham, McConnell, McCain, etc. are GOP....none are (L) leaning in the LEAST.
Put the blame where it belongs.
I didn’t mention the libertarian party, and I have never been a republican.
I put the blame where it belongs, on the anti-conservative, anti-American, anti-God left.
What happened is that libertarianism and the leftists, have moved America so far left in the last 50 years, that the real Americans are too vastly outnumbered, and the left/libertarians are winning the culture.
This was yet another victory for libertarians and leftists in their war against conservatism, America, and God.
No, you blamed libertarianism, not the Party itself.. I will concur the ‘Progressives’/Democrats/Socialists/Communists...yes, they have done more to harm this Country more than anyone.
But Liberal/libertarianism is a misnomer, it’s bad enough to allow other Left to bastardize the meaning as the Right has allowed done with ‘marriage’. But, your denigration of ‘libertarianism’ (the belief in Liberty above all else), is completely off the mark.
More to the truth, it has been the GOP/RNC that has, time and time again, ‘reached across the isle’ to claim bipartisanship and ALLOWING gov’t to encroach and usurp the Freedom and Liberty of We the People.
The (L) party is, and libertarianism in general, are only ONE of a handful of Parties to run on a platform based on our Constitution, as it is WRITTEN and (then) understood.
The GOP/RNC? SS? Sure, no problem there. NSA? Hell, THEY passed the friggin’ (misnamed) Patriot Act. Amnesty? SHIT, please. They can’t even effectively nibble around the edges, as gov’t has only gotten BIGGER and more intrusive even when they had Congress and Presidency.
Show me how/where the GOP/RNC has done ANYTHING to restore the power(s) they have so wrongly taken, or allowed to be taken, from the Citizens? Any dept. red-lined? Hell, any regulation?
I’ll quickly point you to the last line in red @ http://www.usdebtclock.org/. It hasn’t been anyone BUT the DNC and GOP to make that total steadily increase.
Sounds like you want to talk to a republican, I’ve never been one.
Libertarianism has had great victories recently.
Libertarianism has spread in America and shown great victories in advancing it’s agenda over the last 50 years.
This list is very close to being totally checked off as a success, another 5 to 15 years should make it complete.
Libertarian Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Pot, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
********************************
I'm sure that there were a number of people who wanted to believe in Paul, but seriously, is anyone really surprised at this?
*************************
Yes: "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree".
FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Depends on whether you believe in the Constitution I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.