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.
Social Issues can win but maybe it is important to have the right messenger like Cruz is. I know someone in my neighborhood that put the Ron Paul signs, I think a good number of people like him would support Cruz as well.
In a way, this is a bit like the Paul-Bots, some of them that is, from 2011/12 already trying to force their influence on the system.
If you are not socially conservative, you are not conservative. Liberal social policies are always fiscally liberal.
Okay, here we go again...to use Chris Plante’s analogy “chasing squirrels around the backyard with a tennis racquet.”
The bottom line is this and only this either “we believe in God, life, the family, defense, firm foreign policy, and a conservative approach to budgets,” or, we don’t. That is the message and that is the only message that needs to be repeated, and nuanced degrees of any of them is compromise.
After that, THE issue, THE only issue after that is “are you better off today than you were eight years ago.”
How much more money does your family have today than it did when obama took office? Or, do you have less money?
Do you feel safer now that obama has been president? Or, do you fear for your family’s safety?
Do our enemies feel embolden to act against America’s best interest since obama has been president? Have nations acted against the US best interest?
So the candidate that can answer those questions unequivocally that; “We believe in God, life, the family, defense, firm foreign policy, and a conservative approach to budgets” is your candidate.
Answer that honestly and you will have your answer who you should support in 2016.
Otherwise, pick up the tennis racquet.
Rand Paul = gut the military + homosexuals putting Christians into the closet + open-border illegals voting themselves into our wallets. No wonder leftists surreptitiously support candidates like him and his father.
Has anyone bothered to tell him that?
Answer that honestly and you will have your answer who you should support in 2016.
There is such a person, but she has not declared and has been disparaged (even here, regrettably) as damaged goods.
Major disappointment.
“Children have a God-given right to be raised by their father and mother. “
Two fags who decide to get “married” will not be able to have kids no matter what the law says. Every kid has a mother and a father, so I don’t know what it is that you are so worried about.
I agree 100%.
But he's not. So basically, her has to prove to me he's not on the side of GLAAD: for the forcible perversion of basic human institutions by the courts, and the punishment of people who do not go along willingly.
He calls this intolerance tolerance? Tolerance is the virtue of the man who has no principles.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
They might be the majority these days
“just look at the reactions on this thread. He is pissing off a large block which should be easy support for a Republican Canddiate”
Wrong. The problem is that the polls are showing that over 60% of the younger republicans are in favor of gay marriage. If this issue is at the center of the republican platform, republicans will not win period.
Rand Paul is not in favor of gay marriage. He just thinks that government should not be involved with this issue at the federal level.
The bottom line is that if government gets involved, gay marriage will be the law of the land. Conservatives should be in favor of getting government out of the equation because we just don’t have the numbers in our favor to outlaw gay marriage.
The crybabies with unrealistic expectations will keep whining and losing. It will be up to people like Rand Paul to form a new coalition that can win. Those who don’t like it will end up in a third party sooner or later. The ground is shifting whether we like it or not so we must adapt.
Ugh! Unless he repents, I won’t vote for him if he’s the nominee. Period.
Does the Church also have the obligation to ensure that property rights pass to the wife, or should we just go back to the eldest son like before when women were just chattel?
“But he’s not.”
You sure about that? Marriage is a religious issue. Government and the courts should only get involved to enforce contracts between individuals. But I wouldn’t call that a marriage, just a contract.
The Catholic church has a very clear definition of what constitutes a marriage between individuals and I couldn’t care less about any other definitions of marriage drawn up by politicians in Washington.
What does it profit man to gain the whole world yet lose his own Soul.
Well said, and true, a rare combination these days.
Adoption comes to mind, then there is that whole underground pedophilia group, National Man Boys Lovers Association. NAMBLA
What is it that you expect to win with such a coalition? Free Pot and free love for everyone. I think that was a popular cry from Haight-Ashbury back in the 60's.
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.