You know all that talk of a sea change of public opinion in favor of federal marriage equality that’s forced even our most vocal foes to concede defeat? Well, it’s smacked Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in the face, too.
During an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network’s David Brody, Paul suggests the only way to continue the debate for the “traditional” marriage is to keep fighting at the state level since many states are likely to remain antigay.
“If we were to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe if we allow the debate to go on for another couple of decades, and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” Paul said.
Isn’t it sweet that even the most conservative of Republicans are trying their damndest to not end up on the wrong side of history when it comes to same-sex marriage?
They’re not trying anything except not to lose a third straight presidential election. They may be silenced (sort of) but they are not convinced. They are of the same mind still.
Paul is right about a protracted fight. If the results of the Supreme Court’s rulings this summer are narrow, the fate of gay marriage will remain up to each state. Instead of winning one battle on the federal level, we would have to win 50 battles on the state level. It could take another generation before gay marriage is legal in every state.
Rand Paul and his ilk (followers) are exactly why the Progressives have won in every Courtroom in the land when push came to shove. The radical religious right are arrogant, ignorant, recalcitrant… all to their own demise. You may have states that will beat SS Marriage to the punch and pass same sex marriage in the states without a whimper! And then there’s the American christian Taliban!!! Poor souls… one can only pray for them, pity them. They will be even more lonely in their suffering!
Another generation? I doubt it but it is worth the wait. We ARE winning!
When people use the “states rights” BS argument I remind them that segregation is STILL in the Alabama state Constitution and voters there elected to keep it that way in 2004 and 2012. The voters have spoken! Twice! They want to segregate black people in Alabama. Respect the wishes of the voters riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
@greyhound1954: Nah, it won’t take that long. Even if the rulings are narrow in June, more expansive ones will follow. To ensure that happens, the most important thing we can do is elect Hillary Clinton the 45th President of the United States. It would be difficult for the older conservative justices to wait out a third, or even fourth, Democratic term.
HILLARY the one and ONLY! God forbid bloody Christian white republican. The white house is NOT for whits. AdamHomo
The last sentence of this article is very strange. I think the author needs to listen again to the video. Rand isn’t trying to end up on the right side of history at all, but rather is trying to stall gay equality under the banner of states’ rights. I think it’s pretty clear that the people whose hearts and minds he wants to win back aren’t social conservatives, but instead progressives considering his response to whether he supports gay marriage was that he’s “not kinda willing to give up on it yet.”
Social conservatives have inched forward on their treadmill of euphemisms, and they’re just as disgusting as the hate speech they peddled 20 years ago. I wish Rand had the balls to call me a faggot instead of waltzing around all this traditional marriage family unit nonsense. The fact is that he and his ilk find homosexuality distasteful and think we should have fewer rights than they do – it’s really not a complicated concept.
I should add, “it” in Rand’s quote is referring to “traditional” marriage.
I want to know if gay marriage is allowed in some states and the federal government recognizes it and a person legally married in a state that allows it moves to state like Texas that does not, do they still retain rights. I would hope so. I think this will lead to many many lawsuits and I look forward to seeing some of these so called biggoted politicans eat crow. Or better yet, shove it up their a.s
@RichieW: Short answer: No. That would be §2 of DOMA, which is outside the scope of the current litigation. That section explicitly grants states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
There is an argument that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would invalidate that section, but I really don’t know how that clause has been interpreted by the Court. I doubt it’s been interpreted to include marriage laws, which have historically been the domain of the states. Forgive the pun, but I don’t think there’s aback-door way to gay marriage through Full Faith and Credit.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised that Section 2 of DOMA didn’t also go to SCOTUS now, but everything in due time, I suppose. I would be very surprised if the US government would allow any state to ignore part of the Constitution, especially the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Methinks that will be the future case being decided by SCOTUS. Keeping the lawyers busy and rich is a high calling these days, I guess.
Let the debate go on for another “couple of decades”??? !!! Thanks for nothing. I’ll be long dead. I’d like to see equality throughout the country in my lifetime.
Ugh. A couple of decades? Seriously? Also, does anyone else think this “spiritual cleansing” thing sounds kinds of Hitler-esque?
Even if a state did not recognize a gay marriage from another state the Feds would if DOMA is overturned. Any federal rights should still be granted which could make things very interesting.
….the “states rights” BS argument…, Respect the wishes of the voters riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
….elect Hillary Clinton the 45th President of the United States.
….I’d like to see equality throughout the country in my lifetime.
Good comments, all of them….food for some cautious thinking.
I keep thinking about this —
What do these politicians “really really really” think ?
Are they saying things publicly for political gain ?
One other thing —
Why hasn’t anyone from the countries that allow SSM come to help our efforts to sell the courts and the public about the good things that marriage equality will mean.
Surely they have some experience and knowledge here.
No one is against “traditional” marriage. If gay marriage is legal, straight marriage is completely unaffected. We see this in every jurisdiction that has gay marriage. They claim that “traditional” marriage is under attack, but from whom? They certainly have not shown that increasing the number of marriages is a threat to it.
@Billysees: Countries which have SSM never encountered this much opposition on the public or political level.
@carob: Agreed! But you must understand, the social conservatives are NOT the brightest streetlamps on the block– Post graduate degrees mean nothing positive nor do any good for some people. THAT is why “other” countries are so much more advanced than the USA… they use common sense… AND logic! (Unnnngh!) 😉
Exactly. Same-sex couples getting married will NOT lead to a dramatic increase in heterosexual divorces, or mass desertions by straight husbands. I don’t know what the conservatives are so worried about?
I can agree with you carob.
There is a politically volatile environment here in our midst.
I think that’s because there’s money to be made and money to be spent.
“…..social conservatives are NOT the brightest streetlamps on the block….
Cute way of describing conservatives….lol…….lol…..
Conservatives use that “under attack” phrase frequently.
They stir up conservative consciences by using “fear and scare” words
Intelligence and reason are not used by them to discuss the issues of the day.
“I don’t know what the conservatives are so worried about?”
Nobody else knows either.
Comments are closed.