Rand Paul: GOP Must ‘Agree to Disagree’ on Social Issues in Order to Expand Party

Mediaite ^ | March 14th, 2014 | by Andrew Kirell

[ansel12]

I keep posting it to you over and over, it is what angers libertarians and rinos here.

“”That is why we need conservative politicians and a conservative party platform, fighting gay marriage, not libertarians pushing gay marriage and wanting to change the party platform and convince conservatives to support more liberal candidates.””

[Georgia Girl 2]

“I keep posting it to you over and over”

Are you stalkig me? :-)

[SoConPubbie]

Once again, the founders, being the Christians they were, and coming from the era they came from would never perceive that Americans would support/agree to/allow the murder of innocent Babies as being codified by law, nor would they believe the same could happen with regards to Pervert marriage.

It was not even on their "radar", it was inconceivable.

It they thought it would have occurred, can you doubt given their written statements that this form of government was only for a Christian nation that they would not have added the necessary amendments to protect against such evils?

[SoConPubbie]

Since abortion and "sodomite" rights (an oxymoron of there ever was one) are in federal hands now howbeit unconstitutionally, of course I would support amendments against them. But don't you see that the federal government is sponsoring a parade of horribles? And if we acquiesce to that, then every time we turn around we're going to need another constitutional amendment to deal with the next thing they have no business meddling with much less pervert?

Given that you are not calling on Rand Paul, or anyone else for that matter, to support Constitutional Amendments, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that your support for such amendments is tepid at best, and that you will always fall back on the states-rights fallacy.

Given that Rand Paul isn't calling for a constitutional amendment to fix the problem, his politics appear to be more important than his Christianity or his purported anti-abortion stance and his stated belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

As such, he is a hypocrite, and dare I say it, a Liar and completely unfit to be POTUS.

[SoConPubbie]

Duh! Rand Paul is saying that he believes the states SHOULD decide on Gay marriage. Not the Federal govt. I agree. A lot of other conservative republicans agree with that and they are not Libertarians.

Your problem, and Rand Paul's problem, is that State's rights solution is a phony solution that actually leads to a 50 state Gay Marriage ruling by the supreme court.

Precisely because of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" and the activist judges that inhabit each and every level of the Federal Judiciary.

It's a phony solution, because any member of Congress understands this.

If Rand Paul was truly, honestly, and sincerely against both Abortion and Gay Marriage, his only position would be to propose and loudly support Constitutional Amendments for each thereby removing from Judicial and/or congressional tinkering.

He has never proposed that precisely because he is a Libertarian, and to do so, would completely anger his true base: Libertarians.

One other thing, until he takes this tack, his proclamation of being a Christian is an empty one, because you cannot be a Christian and put your politics above your Christianity.

[SoConPubbie]

Your problem, and Rand Paul's problem, is that State's rights solution is a phony solution that actually leads to a 50 state Gay Marriage ruling by the supreme court.

Or, in other words, in reality, this (states rights solution) is meant to sound good to conservatives, but in actuality, it does nothing to solve the problem when there is an actual solution available (constitutional amendment) from a conservative perspective.

In essence, it is a lie.

[PapaNew]

It comes across that you think that central government can somehow be our moral friend which is astonishing when you look at the record. The federal government is either an influencer, sponsor, or enforcer or both of such things as:

- sodomy "education" for kindergarteners
- indoctrination (not education) of children in government schools away from traditional American values and toward perverse ideologies
- sodomy "rights" (a legal oxymoron)
- abortion on demand
- anti-family values
- anti-Christian values
- separating Americans from one another & creating "class" dissension
- creating dependency, not self reliance
- Etc., etc.

Acquiescing to the federal government to put all these social issues in their control is committing moral, social, political, and economic suicide. The Constitution is a political document for individual freedom. I think maybe you don’t believe in individual freedom. Well, you’ve got a lot of friends on the Left who will agree with you then.

The Left, of course, does not believe in the values and morals that you & I do. But if you study the history of the federal government, you find that once you put something in their hands for good, they will eventually figure out a way to turn it around for evil. They’re doing right now. Our Founders were a lot smarter and wiser than you give them credit for. The Constitution created potential monster, but a necessary evil, in the federal government, and that is why it was enclosed as tightly as possible with the clear recognition that is was only allow to do what was delegated to it.

Part of the point here, is that these are clearly debatable issues – whether to give the federal government more control over our lives, howbeit, for “good” reasons which later can be turned around to accomplish just the opposite – a major part of the history of our federal government. Or to fight instead to keep these issues at the state level where the people themselves in each state can decide. Disagreement with you on these things does not make one a “hypocrite”. But it certain gives the Left exactly what they want to get Hillary in in 2016 - the Right splintered and not focused on THE major issue of the day: the monster federal government.

[SoConPubbie]

Now, I come at this from a Christian first perspective, which the founders did as well.

Their politics did not trump their Christianity, quite the opposite.

It was their Christianity that framed their politics and allowed them to create the best government system in the history of the world.

And yes, the Federal government can enforce Pro-Life laws and enforce Anti-Gay Marriage laws quite easily and effectively. There is no difficulty there.

What you have presented is a straw-man argument.

[SoConPubbie]

The Left, of course, does not believe in the values and morals that you & I do. But if you study the history of the federal government, you find that once you put something in their hands for good, they will eventually figure out a way to turn it around for evil. They’re doing right now. Our Founders were a lot smarter and wiser than you give them credit for. The Constitution created potential monster, but a necessary evil, in the federal government, and that is why it was enclosed as tightly as possible with the clear recognition that is was only allow to do what was delegated to it.

That is an excuse for not doing the right thing.

Every thing you have posted in that post is an excuse for not doing the right thing.

It is also being a Surrender Monkey.

[ansel12]

You sure post a lot of words not to say anything.

Right now the federal government has adopted this libertarian position on homosexual issues, in the areas that apply to the federal government, such as the military and immigration, federal employment, etc.

“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””

[Georgia Girl 2]

I believe that Justice Scalia reiterated just the other day that the Constitution is not I repeat not a living document. Ammendng the Constitution is almost never a good idea.

Wake me up when the Article V convention starts. :-) Snicker

[PapaNew]

A happy and healthy society is a free society. That's what I want. There are two things necessary for a free, healthy , and happy society. One is what the Founders gave us with the Constitution: a free republic (sound familiar?) which by definition has a very limited government whose powers are enumerated and delegated by the people. The second thing is reflected in the Declaration of Independence: a knowledge of God and His goodness in giving man the inalienable rights of among other things, Life, Liberty, and Freedom to pursue his dreams and goals.

To mix the political framework of freedom from government interference with individual framework of his freedom to choose is fatal (not to mention unconstitutional which doesn't seem to bother you). Government does not give man the rights to life, liberty, and pursuits - it can only protect them - and that is basically the only role of government. Once you give central government power over individuals' inalienable, God-given rights, you turn the American revolution into the French revolution and citizens' heads roll or the USSR which had a huge list of a bill of rights (under the power of government) and tens of millions of its own citizens were killed by it's own government.