This is the last stand on Earth."
~Ronald Reagan
please click the pic
Help support Free Republic!
Posted on 08/07/2014 2:14:58 PM PDT by BurningOak
"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues."
"So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent?" he added. "I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions."
President Barack Obama underwent a similar "evolution" by announcing his support for same-sex marriage during his 2012 re-election campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
As a conservative in the GOP, sometimes I feel like a battered woman who keeps coming back to the same abusive boyfriend. When do we say enough is enough?!
As opposed to a partial flip? What on earth is he talking about?
Yes. If the GOP gives up on social issues (which arguably, they already have) — they’re going to lose base voters, as they have been doing.
Way to take a stand, Rand.
If we’re “allowed to disagree”, that means conservatives get to disagree and not get pilloried when they vote for someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage.
“Allowed to disagree” really means we are supposed to shut-up and start voting for candidates who support the homosexual agenda.
Rand is back on his “no way I want to be President” tour.
Thanks to Mississippi, the abusive boyfriend now has a name: Thad Cochran.
~Ronald Reagan
please click the pic
Help support Free Republic!
He wants us to “evolve”, which means get to the same place as the Democrats, only slower.
And here I thought I had heard the last of “Compassionate Conservatism”. It was a nice hope, at least.
Rand Paul has destroyed his chances of running for President.
I, and millions of other conservative voters who support moral values, will never vote for anyone who accepts abortion or homosexual marriage.
What a moron!
I don’t know, he sounds just like the sort who gets chosen by the republicans to run. Just follow the republican primary formula, 2-3 moderates run against 5-6 conservatives. Make sure you hold the first few primaries in states that never vote republican in the national election, and ta-da, a modrate gets the nomination.
Freegards
More cowtowing to the homosexualist mafia from the spineless Republicans.
Once again, a politician running NOT on what he believes, But what he thinks the voters are willing to believe about him.
Rand Paul is about as silly as his father.
Rand is trending more liberal than libertarian. A true libertarian would say government doesn’t have a role in deciding what marriage is. It’s a private a religious matter. Especially the federal government. Good libertarians say, get government out of marriage completely. They are probably right.
Once again, government created the marriage with the best of intentions and with no foresight of our current situation, and once again government intervention has been massively destructive.
There’s really not much point to voting anymore. If you do happen to elect somebody who seems to be on the right team, they’ll jump on whatever bandwagon the cultural elites tell them to.
“I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions.”
Sorry Mr Paul, you either stand for something or you fall for everything..
If you abandon this principle what other principal will you abandon?
I would rather hold ground the lose it, I know in the end Sodomy is a not only sinful but self self-destructive practice that has no future but death.
But to restore reason and virtue out a country that has lost nearly all of both, will take strategy, education, and time to implement.
Ultimately however the Government’s contract known as marriage is not nor has it ever been meaningful marriage.
The Government proved that when they made for divorce, compounded that lie by making the divorce so easy that it became obscenely common. What most Americans practice today isn’t really marriage, its not a binding of family precisely because its not a binding.
That the same corrupt government now removes the family from ‘marriage’ only seems to confirm what we all know. They have done nothing but hijack an English word. A word that they have sense rob of any aspect of it’s historic definition, and propose.
Perhaps they did this over the generations to destroy that institution, and with it the foundation of healthy human family & culture. Their intent is at this point somewhat academic in that they have largely achieved that goal.
What we require is a reintroduction of the true Concept of marriage, perhaps under a different name to keep it separate from their now pointless contract.
This will not be popular today, but it is needed, we need to teach our children and grand children to value and pressure only Christian marriage forsaking all others.
It is be defined by certain collection of characteristics, most notably one man and one woman procreation.
There are also many other close relationships between people, some even share many, but not all, of the characteristics of marriage.
If Rand Paul or anyone else wants to form a legal, contractual relationship with someone of the same sex, that embodies similar rights and privileges as marriage, I fail to see how that would be illegal or unconstitutional.
However, that relationship, however important it may be for them, is NOT marriage, it doesn't fit humanity's almost universal definition of "marriage", and it is not right to force others to call it such and pretend it is the same. It isn't.
Rights and respect work both ways.
I don't tell two men or two women they can't pursue happiness and the benefits of a committed, legal relationship together, but they don't get to force me to call it what it isn't: marriage.
Got that, Rand? Rights and respect work both ways. Big enough tent for ya?
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.
