Rand Paul: I Didn’t Think Obama’s Views On Marriage Could “Get Any Gayer.”

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul weighed in last night on President Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage:

(CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul on Friday brushed off Barack Obama’s recent reversal on same-sex marriage by saying he didn’t think the president’s views “could get any gayer.”

The remarks from the Republican senator from Kentucky scored laughs among those attending an event held by Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, a video uploaded on Saturday to the conservative website “The Iowa Republican” shows.

The president, you know, recently weighed in on marriage. And, you know, he said his views were evolving on marriage,” the first-term senator said Friday evening. “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure that his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

Paul, who is the son of GOP presidential longshot and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, made the comments two days after Obama announced that he supported same-sex marriage, which he had previously opposed, while adding he thought the issue should be left up to the states to decide.

(…)

The senator criticized Obama’s explanation that the Golden Rule – to treat others how one wants to be treated – and his faith led to his evolved understanding of marriage. The Golden Rule has its roots in biblical verses.

“It did bother me though that he used the justification for it in a biblical reference,” Paul said. “He said the biblical Golden Rule caused him to be for gay marriage. And I’m like, what version of the Bible is he reading?

“It’s not the King James version, it’s not the New American Standard, it’s not the New Revised version,” he added.

But Paul said his beliefs and those of other social conservatives and Christians do not “mean we have to be harsh and mean and hate people.”

“We understand sin and if we believe it’s a sin, we still are (sinners) and people sin,” he said. “We’re not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people. But that doesn’t mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions.”

“Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said

As someone who has been generally supportive of Senator Paul during his tenure in the Senate, and his campaign in 2010, I’ve got to say that these statements are incredibly disappointing in their prejudice. But, they may also be a sign that Paul is already looking at a Presidential campaign in 2016. Unfortunately, he seems to be setting up that campaign based not on a theme of individual liberty, but on a blatant appeal to social conservatives.

Update: Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed has the video:

FILED UNDER: Congress, Gender Issues, Quick Takes, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    The future sent the past a message, but apparently Rand missed it, so I will repeat it.

    We are done tolerating homophobia. All Americans are indeed created equal, and all enjoy equal protection under the law.

  2. Franklin says:

    I thought the Pauls believed in freedom?

  3. Zeke says:

    Why don’t people who say they want ‘freedom’ understand freedom? If there is going to be freedom to do things that others don’t approve of, then there is going to be freedom for those others not to approve of them!
    If you want to talk about homosexuality, we need to start with the 32 states that have SOUNDLY voted against gay marriage. In fact, EVERY bill, referendum, or ballot issue that has been put up has been voted down. Homosexuality is not popular in Mom n Pop America! Rand Paul is agin’ it! Let him have HIS freedom. He’s not rounding up ‘gays’ into camps! As a Christian, middle aged, physically challenged, ‘white’ guy, I can understand being under a lil’ social pressure. It’s the way of the broken world. Man up! er… no offense intended.

  4. James says:

    @Zeke: So we don’t have the freedom to criticize him? I’m not sure I understand your post.

  5. Al says:

    A Paul acting kinda bigoted and cozying up to social conservatives? Really? Well, it’s a good thing I’m not the type to say “I told you so.”

  6. mantis says:

    He’s not rounding up ‘gays’ into camps!

    That’s your standard?

  7. anjin-san says:

    Let him have HIS freedom.

    Paul is perfectly free to be a bigot. Likewise, I am free to point out that he is a bigot. What’s the problem here?

  8. Zeke says:

    @mantis:

    Of course not! It’s the implication the left is using on Paul, though.

    Freedom and Rights have to go both ways within the law. You can’t demonize someone for ‘demonizing’. That’s all.

    You have a right to free speech. But of course, I have a right not to listen to you.

  9. Zeke says:

    @anjin-san:

    ‘Bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ are contrived words used by the ‘oppressed’ to give them the sense of empowerment.

    But your right, you have the right… No problem.

  10. Zeke says:

    @James:

    Criticize away! Just don’t call your legislator to write up a bill to shut Paul up. Which is exactly what many folk would like…

  11. ernieyeball says:

    @Zeke: Lucky for Randy Paul that he represents the Commonwealth of Kentucky where the men are men and the bears are nervous. For just across the border at Louisa KY lies Fort GAY (aaaggghh), West VIRGINia. Not to be confused with MOUNT GAY (eeekk) in Shamrock County WV and (wait for it) GAY (please Jesus no) in Jackson County WV.
    In fact if it were not for the TUG Fork River, Kentucky would actually touch Fort GAY! YIKES!
    Still looking for Mom and Pop USA. What map is that on?

  12. Zeke says:

    @ernieyeball:

    Ernie, you may ‘the internets’ fun… just sayin’.

  13. al-Ameda says:

    Republicans SAY they don’t want to talk about these social issues, but then they just can’t help themselves.

    But Paul said his beliefs and those of other social conservatives and Christians do not “mean we have to be harsh and mean and hate people.”

    No one is compelling you to be harsh and mean and hate people, it’s completely of your own volition.

    “Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said.

    Begs the question: If there’s stability in the family unit then how is it that the divorce rate in America is between 40% and 50%?

  14. Ben says:

    @Zeke: Your freedom to not approve of something stops when you want to use that disapproval to deny basic human rights to people. One of which is being able to marry the consenting adult of your choice.

    Damn it, Rand. Just when I was starting to like you.

  15. Zeke says:

    @Ben:

    Ah, but ‘basic human rights’ do not encompass the defining of ‘marriage’. Marriage was defined previously, and that definition is not what is wanted by the left.

    Call it civil union. Take all the same benefits, take MORE, whatever. It’s not marriage. Plus, I think the left just likes to beat us ‘breeders’ with the idea that they’re taking our sacred standards from us.

  16. Ben Wolf says:

    You can’t demonize someone for ‘demonizing’.

    Actually, you can. It’s called freedom of speech.

  17. Zeke says:

    @Zeke:

    er… ‘make’…

  18. Zeke says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    It’s only freedom of speech if it’s for both sides, though. The left is like the kid that hits the kid for hitting some other kid and cries when some other kid hits him.

    Freedom is a very dangerous thing. Most people don’t really want true freedom.

  19. James says:

    @Zeke: You’re right Zeke, I want to go back to the old fashioned definitions of marriage when women were just property, I could have as many as I want, and they had to do whatever I told them to. It’s in the Bible. Oh ya, and a few concubines on the side if I get bored.

  20. ernieyeball says:

    @Zeke: “…don’t call your legislator to write up a bill to shut Paul up. Which is exactly what many folk would like…”

    Just for fun why don’t you provide the names of these “MANY (more than 100?) folk” of which you speak!

  21. al-Ameda says:

    @Zeke:

    “Call it civil union. Take all the same benefits, take MORE, whatever. It’s not marriage.”

    Not quite Zeke. North Caroilina included language that precludes civil unions for gay and lesbian people. So there you go.

    Plus, I think the left just likes to beat us ‘breeders’ with the idea that they’re taking our sacred standards from us.

    So your a victim now? I’m a breeder, I have two children, but so for that matter is Bristol Palin. Also, I’m not sure what those ‘sacred standards’ that we supposed want to take form you are.

  22. Al says:

    @Zeke:
    (a) That argument didn’t work in 1967 either.

    (b) The definition of marriage was radically changed over the last fifty years. This change affected all existing and future marriages in this country. Not one constitutional amendment was proposed to stop it. SSM doesn’t change existing marriages and will account for a fraction of new ones. Why is it worse?

  23. “Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said

    Morality is doing what’s right, no matter what you’re told. Religion is doing what you’re told, no matter what’s right.

  24. Charles Lupton says:

    @Zeke:
    Then take the marriage out of the law and put it back in the Church where it belongs. I am straight and had to be “married” twice because the first ceremony was conducted by a friend who had not yet been officially ordained. The first is the only one we celebrate.

  25. anjin-san says:

    ‘Bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ are contrived words used by the ‘oppressed’ to give them the sense of empowerment.

    How old are you Zeke, 15? I am old enough to remember when blacks were being killed in America as they struggled for equal rights. I remember when my black friends had to be ready to fight pretty much every time they left the house, simply because they were black. And this was in California. I assure you “Bigot” is a very real thing.

    One of my gay friend just buried his partner of over 20 years. They were never able to marry, despite the deep love and devotion between them. The expression of love my friend gave in his eulogy was a moving as any I have ever heard directed from a man to a woman.

    Run along junior, you are a bore. Apparently your life is so pathetic that you need an entire group of human beings to hate so that you have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

  26. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Zeke:

    I hit “helpful” because some of you idiots can not recognize sarcasm when it slaps you upside the head.

    Geezez, Mary and Josef……

  27. anjin-san says:

    @ Zeke

    ‘Bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ are contrived words used by the ‘oppressed’ to give them the sense of empowerment.

    BTW “Bigot’ and ‘homophobe” are words I am using, because they accurately describe what is going on here – and I am certainly not opressed, I was born pretty close to being a lottery winner in American society, and I have had lots of advantages I did nothing to earn laid at my feet.

    My vision for this country includes everyone getting a shot at the opportunities that I have been lucky enough to have – this includes the opportunity to be married to the person of your choice.

  28. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Having now read beyond Zeke’s original comment, maybe I was giving him too much credit?

    Jeezez, Mary and Joseph……….

  29. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Yah…. I too am an idiot.

  30. Hey Norm says:

    Rand didn’t fall far from his father’s Bigot tree, did he?
    Bigot tree.
    Get it?

  31. MarkedMan says:

    Stepping back from the content of Paul’s words, what’s with the style? “…couldn’t get any gayer!” he sounds like he’s thirteen years old.

  32. mantis says:

    @Zeke:

    Call it civil union. Take all the same benefits, take MORE, whatever. It’s not marriage.

    Can’t. DOMA and state laws prevent that. Because the right wont allow equality under any name.

    Plus, I think the left just likes to beat us ‘breeders’ with the idea that they’re taking our sacred standards from us.

    No one is taking your standards. You are free to live within them all you want. We just don’t think you should be free to impose them on others who do not share them. That’s freedom.

  33. Franklin says:

    @Zeke: You have a poor understanding of the left and the arguments thereof.

  34. Franklin says:

    BTW, I am truly disappointed here. I really mistakenly thought the Pauls were on the correct side of this issue. I’m slightly more sympathetic to their abortion stand simply because that’s a very complicated issue. But gay marriage is pretty straightforward nowadays, there’s just simply no valid arguments against it that I am aware of.

  35. James says:

    @Franklin:

    “No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution … that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. …
    Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.
    … Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.”
    —Rep Seaborn Roddenbery, Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503

    No replace black with gay and you’ll notice the argument never changes, just the target. As the saying goes, haters gonna hate.

  36. Sirkowski says:

    Christ, what an asshole.

  37. Joe says:

    What’s most frustrating about this is that it’s so easy for social conservatives who wish to focus on fiscal issues to dodge the gay marriage issue (and the drug issue, and the ____ issue…) by deferring to the tenth amendment.

    Actually, that’s not what’s most frustrating. What’s most frustrating is that he used “gay” in a derogatory way, then went on to say that we should be clear we don’t hate gays. Pro-tip, Rand: then don’t use their orientation as an insult. I know plenty of people that consider homosexual acts to be sinful, yet treat gay people with respect. I’m starting to wonder why I bother defending the GOP as a tool for libertarians. Damn it, Rand!

  38. Moosebreath says:

    @ernieyeball:

    Also just outside Kentucky is Floyds Knobs, Indiana. Just sayin’

  39. Herb says:

    @Franklin:

    “I really mistakenly thought the Pauls were on the correct side of this issue. “

    Just curious, but what gave you that impression?

    @Joe:

    “I’m starting to wonder why I bother defending the GOP as a tool for libertarians. “

    Good call, I’d say. I always wonder why libertarians are so GOP-friendly. I mean, sure they’re down with the laissez-faire free market stuff, but that’s about it.

  40. Xerxes says:

    A bad joke is all this story is. No different than Obama’s bad joke on the special olympics in 2009. Should Paul apologize? Sure just like Obama did in 2009. What is sad is that this comment has been dropped by comedians like Lisa Lampanelli at Las Vegas shows. I know, I was there!

    As for Doug, I find this post disingenuous since he has never called out New Jersey Governor Chris Christie when he said that “gays never had it better than having a referendum as the only option for gay rights”. Seems he only posts these entries for select lawmakers. Governor Christie gets all of the accolades.

  41. In regards to the 6,000 years of a stable meaning to marriage bit, the following old post of mine comes to mind: click.

  42. Gustopher says:

    Does Rand Paul’s Aqua-Bhudda not approve of marriage equality? That’s not the Aqua-Bhudda I worship!

  43. mathman says:

    You can have the freedom to disaprove, but you can’t have the freedom to decide personal decisions for others. You can complain all you want, but your personal beliefs should not have more say in another person’s life then that person has in their own life.

    We live in a free society….part of the price is you have to let people have their freedoms whether you like them or not.

    @Zeke:

  44. Ron Beasley says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Exactly – in the old testament marriage was basically a business transaction. The women was little more than a brood sow to be sold. That was old testament “traditional marriage.” The really nasty fact is there are some evangelicals and yes, Catholics, who still think this is the way it should be.

  45. An Interested Party says:

    …he sounds like he’s thirteen years old.

    Typical for a libertarian…

  46. Paul’s political position is exactly the same as his father’s: let the states decide. What Mataconis is objecting to is the cultural conservatism, which seems odd for a “live an let live” “libertarian.” Or don’t traditionalists have a right to their own cultural ethos?

  47. Herb says:

    @Justin Raimondo: “which seems odd for a “live an let live” “libertarian.””

    No what’s odd for a “live and let live libertarian” is to be receptive to the idea that the state gets a say on how people choose to define their personal relationships. But then again, Rand Paul is a Republican and the idea that the state must approve is perfectly consistent with the GOP’s “small government” philosophy.

  48. Earl says:

    Sorry guys(Randy, Obama and Doug), the golden rule predates the bible by up to about 2000 years, and reappears in many different texts multiple times for hundreds of years dating up to the bible.

  49. Argon says:

    Like father (race baiter), like son (gay baiter). Both LINOs… Libertarian in name only, when it comes to religious dogma.

  50. llama says:

    I’m sure this means it’s time to impose Rand Paul’s religious beliefs on the everyone in America and give some more free money to rich people.

  51. al-Ameda says:

    @Justin Raimondo:

    Paul’s political position is exactly the same as his father’s: let the states decide.

    That’s an interesting position for a Libertarian to take – if a state wants to deny a group of citizens equal protection under the law, so be it. I guess the feeling is, if you don’t like it, you’re free to leave that state. Give’s new meaning to the old faux-patriotic slogan, “love it or leave it”

  52. Al says:

    @al-Ameda: Popehat’s take on federalist libertarianism accurately describes the Pauls’ political philosophy.

    A few hot-button issues aside, federalist libertarianism is not especially concerned with protecting individuals from state and local government — it sees strictures passed by those governments as legitimate expressions of local will. In effect, federalist libertarianism spins state and local restrictions on individual liberty as exercises of liberty.

  53. MBunge says:

    I think this has little to do with bigotry and a lot to do with Paul being a disciple of the Ayn Rand Church of Assholery.

    Mike

  54. Except Rand Paul has never claimed to be a suppporter or disciple of Ayn Rand’s

  55. anjin-san says:

    Marriage was defined previously

    Yes, but we have this newfangled tradition that was created by the founding fathers – it trumps a lot of outdated ideas. Some on the right appear to be confused about it. It’s called “freedom”.

    You see, the status of average folks was previously defined before America was founded. They were known as “serfs”, and they pretty much had to do as they were told. That is not the case anymore.

  56. MBunge says:

    @Doug Mataconis: “Except Rand Paul has never claimed to be a suppporter or disciple of Ayn Rand’s”

    Doug, why do you have to be so childishly, insecurely pedantic? You KNOW what Rand Paul’s political philosophy is. You KNOW how it clearly flows out of Ayn Rand. You also know the kind of personality Ayn Rand displayed and how it’s become a template for too much of modern conservatism. If your point is that Paul has never stood up in court and sworn an oath to loving Ayn Rand more than life itself, that would be true. It would also be embarassingly pathetic.

    Mike

  57. An Interested Party says:

    As more and more people learn about Ayn Rand, it is hardly surprising that most of them are repulsed by her ideas….just as Paul Ryan tried to throw her under the bus, I’m sure many other conservatives/libertarians/Republicans will do the same, or act like they never heard of her, while still agreeing with her ideas…

  58. @MBunge:

    Senator Paul and his father come from an entirely different side of the libertarian movement that has never had very many nice things to say about Rand. I know you like to use here as a whipping boy (or girl) but you’re simply wrong on the facts here.

  59. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    I realize that this is a bit aside, but …
    It’s fun to think about the fact that Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare in her retirement years, and evidently she needed it.

    I wonder what Paul Ryan thinks of that?

  60. mantis says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Senator Paul and his father come from an entirely different side of the libertarian movement that has never had very many nice things to say about Rand. I know you like to use here as a whipping boy (or girl) but you’re simply wrong on the facts here.

    Here’s a video Paul made in 2009 explaining the origin of his name (not Ayn Rand), and also what a fan he is of hers.

    “I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and read all of her novels, and she actually spurred me on to other books that I was interested in…”

    He goes on to explain his exposure to Murray Rothbard, Austrian economics and Dostoevsky.

    Guess you don’t know Rand all that well.

  61. @mantis: I’m not so sure that what Rand Paul believes about gays conflicts with what Ayn Rand believed.

  62. J-Dub says:

    @anjin-san: I’d say “Amen, brother” if I weren’t an atheist.

  63. ernieyeball says:

    Zippy Zeke sez: “If there is going to be freedom to do things that others don’t approve of, then there is going to be freedom for those others not to approve of them!”

    The rest of the world doesn’t need your approval to live their lives!