Hacker News Reader

Comment by herbig | Hacker News Reader

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.

View on HN

> at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

Paul is a libertarian and believes that Government should not be involved in the private space, including marriage. I think that's a very reasonable position to have - and I don't think I have seen him saying anything against gays, but please provide a source if you have any.

Exactly, he (unfortunately) feels like he has to say these types of things to pander to the typical Republican voter. However, he's one of the only people out there talking about the real issue: should government be involved in the marriage business at all? Sure, Paul says some seemingly nutty stuff, but if we judge based on his voting record, he's easily the strongest Republican on personal liberty and right to privacy (not to mention a sane foreign policy).

The simple problem is that 99.999999999999999999% of self-professed libertarians I've encountered who simply say "the government should get out of the marriage business" only ever say that. They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the books" -- stand.

So in extensional terms, such "libertarians" are often indistinguishable from theocrats on key social issues (i.e., regardless of what different set of inner philosophical principles they might claim to be following, the outward result in terms of lawmaking is identical). Which in turn means they're not going to get my vote.

"They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the books" -- stand."

How many self-professed libertarians are there in the Congress? Paul's not even self-professed libertarian. The only one I know is Justin Amash, and he couldn't introduce any of type of bills you reference because under Boehner's regime only bills blessed by his team could ever make it to the floor.

Very true—what libertarians should do is promote common‐law marriage, which is permitted in 9 states. Unfortunately, over time fewer and fewer states have allowed forming new common‐law marriages. And in those states where it’s still possible, same‐sex common‐law marriage has always been illegal. So “get the government out of the marriage business” still requires active effort to change the laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_U...

Wow, this is terrible, common law is just great for tax and separation ("divorce") purposes regardless of orientation, an excellent way to provide a measure of equality.

I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.

In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.

He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.

That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.

State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action.

The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out.

The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.

I suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).

I'm fairly sure he is content with the states defining it. I'm not sure I've heard whether or not he'd do anything concerning what the supreme court decided.

Follow up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay...

Always interesting to note that:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

is exactly what Obama "believed" in 2008.

every liberal has to draw a line somewhere. he might think aborting is murder, so he puts the same restrictions you (hopefully) put on murder.

For what it's worth, Paul was one of only 8 Republicans who voted against rescinding funds from Planned Parenthood.

Paul's views on immigration and refugees are also equally horrendous.

I can't see myself voting in 2016. I find the views of all the Republican and Democratic candidates to be morally repugnant, just for different reasons.

As an LGBT person myself, I refuse to vote for Paul or any other candidate who opposes LGBT rights (including the entire Republican field), and as a Jew, I refuse to vote for any candidate that opposes refugees. However, I also won't vote for the Democrats because their views on other subjects are just as repugnant, including gun control and minimum wage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com