What Does America’s Foremost Champion of Civil Liberties Think of Same-Sex Marriage?
By I’m sure his thoughts will be both progressive and eminently rational!
For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck. Here’s the entirety of Rand Paul’s response, in which the senator said he’s “kind of with” the unhinged host.
“I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?
“You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”
Like Rick Santorum, but less articulate — pretty much Rand Paul in a nutshell.
Relatedly, via Farley it’s amusing to see how Real Progressives respond to a bare majority of the Supreme Court overturning the core provision of most important civil rights legislation of the past century based on some of the most embarrassingly specious arguments ever to come down the pike. Apparently, the appropriate response is to blandly and uncritically summarize what it would be too charitable to call the “rationale” of the majority opinion, without even a mention of the arguments made in Ginsburg’s dissent. This leads to comments that are precious — disenfranchisement is no big deal, doncha know, because elections don’t matter as this 5-4 decision along straight party lines surely proves.
Anyway, I’m going to assume that had Obama announced that he was going to instruct the DOJ to not use preclearance challenges for any election law changes that fall short of Jim Crow statutes or if Elena Kagan had been the swing vote, FDL would have quickly rediscovered the importance of the right to vote.