Hacker News Reader

Comment by spo81rty | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com