Bash To Paul: You Believe ‘People Should Be Left Alone Except When It Comes To Marriage’
Liberty! Freedom! But not gay marriage, according to Rand Paul.
[su_publirb]
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
StoneyCurtisll April 12th, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Randy Paul aint no libertarian if he is against same sex marriage..
I bet his daddy thinks otherwise.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 2:41 pm
His position is consistent with libertarianism. Being left alone to live you life your own way is what libertarianism is all about. That’s different from asking your fellow citizens, represented by the state, to SANCTION your lifestyle.
Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. If a gay friend invited me to their wedding, I would not hesitate to attend, and I would relax and have a good time. Other people may feel differently.
Rand Paul is not saying that gays shouldn’t have weddings or that people should not attend. He’s a constitutionalist, and the constitution says that the people, through their representatives, get to decide what kinds of marriages they wish to sanction.
The way to get laws changed is to build overwhelming support among the people so that their elected representatives will do the people’s will. If a majority of the electorate wanted to sanction polygamy by issuing marriage licenses to groups of three or more adults in a relationship, then the people have that power. What Rand Paul is really saying is that he doesn’t get to decide. The people get to decide.
StoneyCurtisll April 12th, 2015 at 2:49 pm
You seem to be suggesting that libertarianism is only an ideal that is exclusive only on the federal level and not on the state..
Where do you draw the line?
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Libertarianism appeals to me at all levels: Federal, State, Local, School Board, Parents. At each level, there are people who have authority over others. Libertarianism says that they should use that authority only to the minimum degree necessary to ensure an orderly society. Parents should give their kids as much freedom and responsibility as they are developmentally ready to handle. Likewise for school boards. But that doesn’t mean that parents and school boards should be expected to ENDORSE or SANCTION everything that kids do. Parents and school boards may choose to endorse or sanction SOME things, and they may choose to prohibit SOME things, but the VAST majority of things are in the middle, neither sanctioned nor prohibited. The essence of libertarianism boils down to this: You don’t tell me what to do, and I won’t ask you to endorse or sanction what I do. The principle works at all levels, from parents and school boards to state and federal government.
pignose4.0 April 12th, 2015 at 3:07 pm
All those words and you said nothing, so sad.
StoneyCurtisll April 12th, 2015 at 3:11 pm
I was hoping for a simple answer to my question, (where do you draw the line)..
Not a 150+ word diatribe on the wonders of liberalism..
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 7:32 pm
I’ve seen that with school boards and giving children the maximum freedom with minimal involvement by authorities at schools has resulted in chaos that prevents education.
What follows is not freedom, but license.
I was fortunate enough to go to the finest school system in the country, were all the government’s schools for military dependents put in one district. There the exercise of discipline and rules that permitted expulsions with the added pressure of parents having to face school boards where the base commanding officer was chairman resulted in great success. (There also were other factors that led to this school system being rated number one by Vanderbilt University.)
In the public school system, the erosion of discipline and insistence that unruly children stay in school and face minimal consequences led to a steady decline in the quality of education.
Oh, and I wasn’t so hot at following the rules. I set the record for detentions in my first year of high school.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 8:10 pm
“Parents should give their kids as much freedom and responsibility as they are developmentally ready to handle.”
Emphasis on “responsibility” and “ready to handle”. 🙂
pignose4.0 April 12th, 2015 at 3:11 pm
” their elected representatives” are doing what they want because they send them back year after year.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 3:30 pm
That’s the way a federal republic is supposed to work. If you don’t like an existing law, you need to convince a majority of your fellow citizens to agree with your position and pressure their elected representatives to change the law. Public opinion on same-sex marriage has been changing rapidly, more rapidly in some states than in others. In states where the balance of public opinion has shifted, the law has changed. The system is working exactly as it was designed to work.
arc99 April 12th, 2015 at 5:06 pm
When a citizen’s rights under the 14th amendment equal protection clause are infringed, no we do not need a majority of citizens to agree to change the law. Constitutional rights are not subject to popular vote. The citizens of Washington DC found that out when a new more strict law on carrying firearms was struck down by the courts, despite the fact that the law was passed unanimously by the DC City Council.
So if the 2nd amendment right to bear arms cannot be restricted by popular vote or by legislation, why should the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment be any different?
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 6:54 pm
The Constitution itself has been amended many times. Democracy does not define good and bad. It only provides a means for people to jointly reach a decision.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:29 pm
so if enough citizens OK slavery?
or forced nudity? (keeps everything out in the open!)
or not allowing interracial marriage?
or smoking in the boy’s room?
or flying a 747 without a pilot’s license?
or driving 95 down main street at rush hour?
or yelling fire in a theater?
or refuse to pay any tax if their house is not on fire?
public opinion is not legal protection especially if you happen to be a part of the minority.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 6:53 pm
Yes, yes, and yes. The solution to bad laws is not to appoint a benevolent dictator. The solution is to convince your fellow citizens of the need for different laws. We had slavery and prohibitions against interracial marriage. Those laws were changed when a majority no longer supported them. Democracy does not define what is good or bad. Democracy is simply a means for society to arrive at a joint decision.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 7:09 pm
then why try to backtrack?
if there are NO laws to prevent discrimination, you’re at the time before laws were made to end discrimination. What you are stating is we don’t need these laws anymore because no one will do it anyway? Then why did they do it the first time? -just like now with the refusal to cater to gays in a PUBLIC business. Ending slavery did not come by peaceful assemblies to vote on the issue. Neither did the illegality of forcing American children being raised in the Jewish faith to be forced to praying in Jesus name. If democracy allows the discrimination of any of it’s citizens, it has ceased to become a democracy (ref: Nazi Germany 1932) and will result in a dictatorship (ref: Bundyland Uprising USA 2014).
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 7:57 pm
The Constitution and our laws are an outgrowth of our cultural values. If we fail to pass those values along to our youth, they will shred the Constitution and ignore the laws. Have you ever read or seen The Time Machine by HG Wells? We already have the Morlocks (aka ISIS) in Iraq. If our youth become the Eloi, the Constitution won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on. The values that matter aren’t the ones on paper; they’re the ones in people’s heads.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 7:23 pm
Laws against interracial marriage were struck down following the Loving v. Virginia case.
This is a somewhat minor point in terms of your overall argument. I’ve always liked the Churchill quote. When it comes to voting on legislation, there are only two ways to go – the majority of votes prevail or the minority of votes prevail. The only other option I can imagine right now is to have no vote at all, but have the law enacted by a dictatorship of some sort.
By the way, I think it is kind of funny that some seem to want you to be a far right fringe tea partier, Mr. Snyder. They do not realize they are practicing the same kind of absolutist politics and often with the same vitriol that they deplore when it comes from the Right.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 8:47 pm
“some seem to want you to be a far right fringe tea partier”
Did I ever tell you about the time I went to a nudist camp with a gay friend? Or the time I drove all the way from upstate NY to DC to march in an anti-draft rally? Or the time, shortly after 9/11, when I told my friends and relatives they should be singing God Bless Afghanistan, because America was already blessed?
I honestly wouldn’t know how to label my politics, or yours for that matter. My wife will tell you that I am definitely a non-conformist and a skeptic. Did I ever tell you about the time that I told off a priest at a pre-cana class because he treated Protestant partners as second-class citizens?
People make an awful lot of assumptions about one another in these blogs. The human ability to assign people to stereotypes is alive and well.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
so, basically what you are saying is that majorities make a good lynch mob?
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
Churchill said it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.”
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:52 pm
Churchill never had a hangman’s noose around his neck either.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:55 pm
only little part you’re leaving out is the ones who suffer under the discrimination of the majority, and their ESTABLISHED LEGAL RIGHTS.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 7:14 pm
There is also the option of challenging unConstitutional laws in the courts. There are numerous occasions in our history where majorities were in the wrong concerning rights and the Supreme Court does not (or should not) pay attention to majorities but to the law.
Loving v. Virginia states that:
“Marriage has long been held to be a right essential to the pursuit of happiness.”
We also have the 14th amendment.
Our courts, legislatures and society are finally coming around to recognizing this inequality in our laws and are all moving us forward to becoming a nation of more equality than we had before.
Those in opposition are fighting a losing, rear-guard action and all they are doing now is prolonging their agony, which would be fine with me but for the fact that we need equality for gays NOW!
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 7:59 pm
It sounds as if you’re agreeing with me that, as public opinion changes, laws change. The public opinion comes first, and the laws follow. Wouldn’t you agree?
tracey marie April 12th, 2015 at 4:38 pm
our constituion does not allow for theocratic laws of discrimination
pignose4.0 April 12th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Libertarians are crazy they want to sell all federal land including national parks get rid of public education end all government control over clean air and water. Watching Paul squirm is very satisfying for some reason.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:22 pm
well if federal land is going to be ‘sold’ -shouldn’t the buyer PAY for it?
StoneyCurtisll April 12th, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Traditional Libertarians are for open borders..
I bet Randy Paul has other ideas, those that make him a Tea-party libertarian…(there isn’t much difference)..
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Are you for open borders? If so, what’s your definition of “open”?
StoneyCurtisll April 12th, 2015 at 3:32 pm
I’m not a libertarian..
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 3:45 pm
I do not doubt that some libertarians may support open borders, but I don’t think it’s accurate to equate “libertarian” with “open borders”. No group is monolithic. In my community there are plenty of pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. These labels only get you so far.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 6:37 pm
When I was a kid, we had a real tough librarian who I now wish we had more of in public libraries. Not only did we have to keep quiet, we could not leave unless we had pushed in our chairs. Also, she used to…..no, wait………………………………..sorry…
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 7:31 pm
I’m for wide open borders. Some may argue that the influx would destroy our economy, I disagree. The human economy is much like the oceans and is also governed by universal law. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Tides coming in bring things to shore. Tides going out return things to the sea.
Robert M. Snyder April 12th, 2015 at 8:02 pm
So if every member of ISIS comes to your state, that’s okay with you?
fahvel April 13th, 2015 at 3:27 am
you got it fella – thousands of isis’s are hidden behind the pines of canada and the gila monster burrows in mexico just drooling with anticipation for the day the borders open – there’s millions of them out the I tell ya, millions and they want all of texas and n. dakota and then your kids and …………… you are a terrified little person m’thinks.
fahvel April 13th, 2015 at 3:25 am
open with a smile and a kind caring nation that honors its own constitution.
Obewon April 12th, 2015 at 3:46 pm
RiP wants to be left alone except when it comes to marriage, $60 B+ in annual Big Oil Subsidies, etc.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:41 pm
you must show them your papers when they set up armed road blocks in your neighborhood though. They want it, they do it, FU if you don’t agree.
labman57 April 12th, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Rand Paul is a selective Libertarian — he firmly believes that the federal government should not intrude in the lives … of white Christian males.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:39 pm
Rand is no libertarian, republican or american, he’s a bought and paid for white racist as exemplified by his own acceptance as being just like the WHITE RACIST TERRORIST of the Cliven Bundy cell.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Rand is a Romneyist.
you can tell by his flips and flops
plus the willingness to accept both sides of an issue at the same time.
and stating both at the same time.
fancypants April 12th, 2015 at 5:05 pm
tell it like it is rand….
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 6:34 pm
The cartoonist should have had drops of greasy kids stuff dripping from his hair like a leaky faucet…
JMax April 12th, 2015 at 5:40 pm
“You could have both the traditional marriage, which I believe in and then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another.”
Why would the state have any interest in the former if it recognized the latter?
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 6:35 pm
religious intolerance of a government of the people.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 7:05 pm
It saves them time and money to privatize.
Greasy-haired Rand Paul came mighty close to approving of gay marriage. The problem is you never know when he’ll reverse course.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 7:16 pm
Romney must be giving a special in his political etiquette classes?
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 7:22 pm
I like MARRIAGE recognized by governments to be EQUAL MARRIAGE for ALL.
kinda goes along with the written laws, Constitution and pledge of allegiance.
J.P. Orosz April 13th, 2015 at 2:01 pm
what you like is irrelevant.
What matters is law.
J.P. Orosz April 13th, 2015 at 2:00 pm
really you can’t understand that a civil union is a contract without God
And Marriage is a contract with God?
cecilia April 13th, 2015 at 2:16 pm
since there’s no evidence any gods exists that makes “civil unions” and church weddings exactly the same thing
JMax April 13th, 2015 at 3:43 pm
I have a marriage license issued by a city and county. It says “License and Certificate of Marriage.” Ergo, my MARRIAGE is a contract between my wife and me certified by the state. Nowhere on it is God mentioned.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
She got the ball to the one yard line and fumbled.
She should have followed his last answer by nailing him down, asking him if he would sign a bill giving equal rights to gays and what course he would advise states to take on the issue.
Instead she changes the subject and tosses him a softball.
granpa.usthai April 12th, 2015 at 7:20 pm
and knock him out so early?
Republican Rule 1.
never ever sign your name to anything unless it’s a letter denouncing POTUS Obama.
cecilia April 13th, 2015 at 1:17 pm
she missed telling him that a marriage licence is what you buy from the STATE.
a wedding is what you can have in a church, temple, wherever….and you don’t even need THAT. it’s entirely voluntary.
This is a secular Nation and no one has to have a wedding. Religion is strictly a personal matter. And if we want a Free America it has to remain that way.
burqa April 14th, 2015 at 9:46 pm
Indeed. She had him right there on the verge of admitting gays should have equal rights to marry and all that entails. All she needed to do was get him to clarify his last point.
Even as it is, he went far enough to piss off the far right and it’ll be interesting to watch if he tries to walk that one back.
Fortunately there is still plenty of time and it’s not as if the issue is going to go away.
Sam April 12th, 2015 at 9:33 pm
Rand flipped on Gay rights,,,, aid to Israel, reproductive rights,campaign reform.and God know what else,Most the time he refuses to answer the questions anyway.
Reminds me when McCain went form a moderate to a right wing nut job to gain support form the GOPes
,
booker25 April 13th, 2015 at 8:56 am
Dana forgot Rand Paul wants to get between a woman’s right to choose.
J.P. Orosz April 13th, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Progressive change their mind on an issue: Evolving
Conservatives change their mind on an issue: Flip flop
Seems pretty fair.