4 ms·

I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.

Gracana 11y ago
In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.
agildehaus 11y ago
He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.
- insensible 11y ago
  That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action. The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out. The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  I suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).
Navarr 11y ago
I'm fairly sure he is content with the states defining it. I'm not sure I've heard whether or not he'd do anything concerning what the supreme court decided. Follow up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay-marriage-ruling-119533 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay...
flycaliguy 11y ago
Always interesting to note that: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." is exactly what Obama "believed" in 2008.

Gracana 11y ago

In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.

agildehaus 11y ago

He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.

insensible 11y ago
That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.
mattlutze 11y ago
State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action. The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out. The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.
ubernostrum 11y ago
I suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).

Navarr 11y ago

I'm fairly sure he is content with the states defining it. I'm not sure I've heard whether or not he'd do anything concerning what the supreme court decided. Follow up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay-marriage-ruling-119533 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay...

flycaliguy 11y ago

Always interesting to note that: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." is exactly what Obama "believed" in 2008.