Ron and Rand I’m sure, see this as a matter for the States.
Unfortunately, nowadays, we probably will not be able to get a national referendum on the definition of Marriage but individual States, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Texas, California should be able to have self-determination on what they want marriage to be and as we all know, judges stiffed California voters.
Judges? Or was it just one judge in California, however, that was grossly unfair.
Paul is not running for governor of Kentucky, he is a Senator running for President, yet instead of coming out against gay marriage at the federal level, in the military, federal employment, and immigration, Paul came out for gay marriage, and to remove it from the party platform.
I don’t want to get in an argument about this, the whole premise in saying RP supports Gay Marriage is silly.
Paul said we want more people in the party and on some issues, we may “agree to disagree”, as far as mine following the conversation, this is not supporting gay marriage.
What if this were another issue, are we saying that there would be no room for someone who disagrees or agrees on a number of issues?
It seems all Paul was saying is that there needs to be room for everyone in the party, at least diverse opinions in the party, that hardly seems like supporting gay marriage. The logic from the get-go is befuddling.
This takes a lot of reflection, not sure if I agree with what the Nevada GOP does here in this article: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Marriage-definition-pulled-from-Clark-GOP-platform-5367933.php
In fact, I would say I would be against what the Nevada GOP is doing in this case.