Is Rand Paul Trying to Have It Both Ways on Gay Marriage? Probably Not.

"Not a federal matter" somehow becomes "supports constitutional amendment"You may have possibly heard
this morning that The New York Times Magazine this weekend
is exploring whether our “libertarian
moment”
has arrived. Besides visiting Reason in D.C., writer
Robert Draper interviewed libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.)
and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), among others. An analysis from Paul of
the rocky current relationship between the Republican Party and the
realities of Americans’ shifts of opinion on same-sex marriage has
gotten some attention.
Here’s what Paul said
in the interview:

“The party can’t become the opposite of what it is,” he told me.
“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? 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.”

The folks over at the gay activist group Human Rights Campaign
have jumped on these comments and think this means a flip-flop from
Paul over comments Paul said earlier this week in Iowa while
preparing for what is obviously going to be a run for the
president. Here’s how CNN described
Paul talking about marriage at a breakfast event
in Urbandale,
Iowa:

Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment
defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Sen. Rand
Paul said Wednesday he supports the idea of traditional marriage
but thinks Washington shouldn’t be involved in the issue.

“I’m in favor of the concept,” the Kentucky
Republican told an audience in Iowa. “I am in favor of traditional
marriage, and I think that’s been the foundation for civilization
for thousands of years.”

“And the loss of the idea of marriage is probably the leading
cause of poverty in our country, in the sense that if you kids
before you’re married, your chance of being in poverty is three of
four times that of anyone else,” he continued.

Emphasis on the word “concept” added. It seems pretty obvious to
me that he is talking about the “concept” of traditional marriage,
not the concept of a constitutional amendment. In fact, he states
very clearly that he takes the libertarian position against having
the federal government license marriages period. He said, “I don’t
want to register my guns in Washington or my marriage. That may not
please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn’t
register their marriage in Washington. They registered it locally
at the courthouse. I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a
federal issue.”

But somehow, the Human Rights Campaign has decided that Paul
nevertheless supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriage despite everything else he says and is now trying to
attack him as a flip-flopper. They put out a press release today in
response to the Times story on libertarians titled “Rand
Paul on Marriage Equality: ¯_(ツ)_/¯,” incorrectly stating that
Paul has declared his support for the “concept” of a constitutional
ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Vice President for
Communications Fred Sainz memorializes some poor
reading comprehension skills in print
:

“I can’t decide whether to be disturbed or pleased, so I’ve
settled on confused. I just hope that when the libertarian from
Kentucky heads to Iowa and New Hampshire, he doesn’t leave his love
of liberty at home. The Republican Party must move forward on this
issue. The clock is ticking, three marriage cases have already
reached the Supreme Court, and there is no doubt that this issue
will cause the GOP enormous pain in 2016 if they don’t engage in a
meaningful way, and fast.”

Accidental misunderstanding or deliberate mischaracterization?
There’s obviously no way a constitutional amendment banning gay
marriage is going to be on the table and obviously Paul realizes
it. Perhaps it’s just another sign that more people are realizing
Paul as a presidential frontrunner and sharpening the knives.

Below, Paul makes some similar comments in a recent interview
with Reason TV while at a tech conference in San Francisco:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1r2pqbK
via IFTTT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *