Posted on 03/19/2014 8:55:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In an effort to expand his party’s base of support, Senator Rand Paul is urging fellow-Republicans “to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by” issues like “traditional marriage.”
Is he serious? Does he actually think this is a winning strategy? And can he truly believe that this is a way for Republicans to advance their cause?
I’m afraid so.
As reported on March 14th, Paul stated that, “I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues.”
What a self-defeating, misguided strategy, for quite a few reasons.
First, the very concept of expanding a party whose platform includes a strong, conservative stand on social issues by weakening that stand is contradictory and wrong-headed. It would be like Planned Parenthood deciding to agree to disagree on abortion, actively recruiting pro-lifers into their ranks (or the reverse, with pro-lifers expanding their base by agreeing to disagree on abortion and welcoming pro-abortionists into their ranks). Who ever heard of such nonsense?
Second, we’ve already seen in recent elections that by catering to the left-of-center Republicans, the party’s most important voting base gets turned off and fails to vote in force. And make no mistake about it: What Paul is referring to does cater to the left-of-center voters (more on this shortly).
Third, has Paul learned nothing from the success of the Democrats in 2012? Their platform, highlighted during the DNC, put forth a radical social agenda (from the most extreme pro-abortion stances to the wholesale embrace of gay activist goals, most particularly redefining marriage), and the Democrats did so unashamedly. Yet Paul thinks that by doing the opposite with his own party’s values, the Republicans can succeed.
Fourth, by compromising core values in order to get elected, you ensure that your party will be ineffective in bringing about change once elected, regardless of what promises are made. In fact, leaders who compromise in order to get elected have already revealed themselves to be lacking in conviction (which is a reason they should not be voted for in the first place).
Fifth, by minimizing the massive implications of redefining marriage – this is not the kind of issue you “agree to disagree” on – Sen. Paul indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the inevitable results that will follow should marriage be redefined on a national level.
These results include the continued erosion of our freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience (churches and Christian leaders, don’t imagine for a moment that these issues will not be forced on you in the near future); more and more gay activist curricula in our children’s schools; the very real potential for the further redefining of marriage (note well that the same media that has been celebrating homosexuality for the last couple of decades is now celebrating polygamy – the newest show is My Five Wives – and polyamory); and even challenges to basic gender distinctions.
Almost 20 years ago, gay journalist Andrew Sullivan wrote, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, ninety percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.”
And Senator Rand Paul wants us simply to “agree to disagree” on this?
Yet Paul adds insult to injury by the vocabulary he uses, speaking of wanting “to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by” issues like traditional marriage. Festooned by “traditional marriage”? (For the record, I prefer to call this natural, organic marriage, which it is.) Is the Republican Party also festooned by issues like standing against abortion?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “to festoon” means “to cover or decorate (something) with many small objects, pieces of paper, etc.,” as in, “We festooned the halls with leaves and white lights,” just like one festoons (or, adorns) a Christmas tree with cute little trinkets, maybe with an angel on the top.
And that is how Paul sees the issue of redefining marriage, one of the greatest and most momentous moral, social, and spiritual issues of our time (or, really, any time)? (My debate at the University of Central Florida with Prof. Eric Smaw underscores this clearly, as does the recent book by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson.)
The fact that Paul could utter these words at all is cause for deep concern. (I’m quite sure that he is not simply “festooning” his expected presidential campaign with rhetoric like this; he surely means what he is saying.)
The fact that he is presently at or near the top of the Republican heap is downright scary.
Rand Paul - Fail! Epic Fail!!
Paul has put his foot in his mouth one too many times. Why not get rid of the opposition to welfare that ‘festoons’ the party and causes inner city leeches not to vote for us?
Stand on principle, or you won’t stand at all.
IMO, the same sorts of people who are rabid about voting pro-abortion or for gay marriage, are also highly inclined to vote for the Democrat giveaway freebies. It’s a fool’s errand.
Government has no business defining what marriage is.
This is not a political issue.
Rand Paul is right.
I agree with the author, and Rand Paul has lost any credibility, in my eyes.
“gay marriage” invites bigger government and results in fewer liberties
Rand Paul fails
Runt Paul is a Libtardian, NOT a Republican!
Let the weasel bastard come out of the closet and run in his own party.
Government's role is to "secure the blessings of liberty." Children have a God-given right to be raised by their father and mother. To protect that right is the interest of government and family law. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is largely to secure the rights of children. So called "Gay Marriage" replaces "father" and "mother" with "partner 1" and "partner 2". . .and completely overlooks the only interest that government has in marriage: to identify the father and mother and, by the rule of law, see to it that they fulfill their obligation to their child.
Fine.
But the inevitable fallout from non traditional ‘arrangements’ is that everyone ELSE has to pick up the tab for children raised in one parent ‘families’ and not to mention... the equally inevitable failure of children in these kinds of homes.
They don't do well in school, have trouble with the law, THEMSELVES likely will never marry, THEIR health care is problematic... etc. It's all going to fall on the rest of us to subsidize their BS lifestyle.
THAT'S the objection I have to ‘non traditional’ marriage.
This is why Rand Paul should head on over to the libertarians. His views are much closer to theirs than to Conservatives, or even pubbies.
I agree with Barnacle-government has no business defining the issue of marriage-I have a priest-and a Bible-to define moral issues, thank you. Church/temple/mosque/synagogue is the place for marriage, civil contracts are for anything else.
Government is supposed to provide a national defense-not looking good there right now-they can’t even deliver the mail without operating in the red...
My 1st husband adopted my baby from an elopement with a complete ass. He was her father, and no government was needed to “define” him as such, although we did pay a lawyer. I also believe the words said before God and the clergyman of your choice define marriage-not a piece of paper you bought at a courthouse...
anyone who thinks the GOP gains more votes than they lose by moving left is INSANE
States have long regulated marriage and if anyone should per government, it should be the localities and States. Federal Government out.
Check “Cousins Marriage” laws, they can be very different from state to state.
Why libertarianism will never equate to conservatism.
Sadly though, when it is left to the degenerates to define, things like banning the Roman Catholic church from placing children for adoption takes place. There is no reason to ban polygamous or poly-amorous “marriages” either...this marriage can mean anything and the institution is destroyed. If you accept the premise that marriage is something other than a man & woman, I have yet to hear/read a cogent argument against polygamy. It is simply inconsistent.
Oh, and as an aside, every time I see Rand’s whining demeanor and slouch, I can’t help but think he’d have benefited greatly from a few years in the military.
the institution of marriage is the bedrock of civilization - so destroy it?
at least you recognize the goal is destruction of marriage
These statements by Paul are to appease the Libertarian Party types at least, I say Libertarian Party because that's just a name they adopted. I don't know if they represent real libertarianism.
I'm not going to read it in depth now, I did 2 years ago, I think they are even for Open Borders basically as section 3.4 indicates.
Should be called "Liberal-Tarians" and a lot of what Ron Paul says is okay but I think his views are more "States Rights" vs. "Libertarianism".
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.