Senator Rand Paul is about to find out firsthand that he’s not going to be able to cling to the libertarian following that his father, Ron Paul, built over his career, while still being able to pander to the ultra-religious tea party conservatives that he needs to win over to stand any chance at the GOP nomination.
Unfortunately for Paul, it seems the one issue that’s really going to expose his hypocrisy is same-sex marriage.
I actually happen to know a few libertarians (real libertarians), and while I rarely discuss politics with them, I do know that every single one of them believes same-sex marriage should be legal. They don’t feel that the government should have anything to do with “defining” marriage and the only time it should have any involvement is during a divorce to settle various assets or debts between the parting couple.
But not Rand Paul.
See, he has to somehow find a way to pander to the little to no government libertarians who often oppose bans on same-sex marriage, while still appeasing the ultra-religious conservatives who would love to see a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Well, he’s actually found a “solution” to his problem – and it’s absolutely idiotic.
“Why do you believe, just as a core principle as a libertarian, that people should be left alone, but not when it comes to their right to marry someone they love?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Paul during an interview on Sunday.
“I do believe people ought to be left alone,” Paul said. “I don’t care who you are, what you do at home or who your friends are, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to. What you do in your home is your own business. That’s always been who I am. I am a leave-me-alone kind of guy.”
“But not when it comes to marriage,” Bash responded.
“Well, no, the states will end up making the decisions on these things,” Paul replied. “I think there’s a religious connotation to this. I also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law. I see why if the marriage contract conveys certain things, that if you want to marry another woman, you can do that and have a contract. But the thing is that the religious connotation of marriage that has been going on for thousands of years, I still want to preserve that.”
“And you probably could have both,” he continued. “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.”
In other words, he opposes “liberty” (a big word for Paul) for gay Americans who want to be married to the person they love, but he does have it in his heart to allow these people to sign a contract – like they’re entering into a damn business merger instead of a loving relationship.
Paul’s comments essentially relegate gay Americans to substandard levels of Constitutional rights. Because he doesn’t have a problem with them being contractually obligated to one another, he just doesn’t think they should have the right to call it marriage.
In a way, Paul’s stance is almost even more insulting to gay Americans than simply saying he opposes marriage equality. He’s literally treating homosexual Americans like objects rather than human beings deserving of equal rights.
Besides, in the eyes of the law, religion has nothing to do with marriage. Atheists get married all the time in this country. So, since Paul believes marriage is based upon religion, is he then saying that only religious heterosexuals should be allowed to get married? What about those people who simply choose to go to a Justice of the Peace, bypassing any religious attachment to their marriage?
Do you see how flawed his “stance” on gay marriage is? That’s what happens when someone is literally trying to pander to groups of people with completely different beliefs on what role the government should play in defining marriage.
Up next for Rand Paul: Explaining how he’s going to stick to the libertarian isolationist/anti-war roots of his father – while also supporting giving billions in aid to Israel; pandering to conservatives who want war with radical Islam; and supporting the continued push by his party to start a war with Iran.
That should be a fun train wreck to watch.
Check out the interview below via CNN: