Read time: 2 minutes

Rand Paul Says Same Sex Marriage 'Offends Him'

Senator Rand Paul exposes that he's really a libertarian theocrat when he told Fox News' Bret Baier that same sex marriage offends him and others.

As readers know, I'm no fan of libertarianism. They are people, mostly embarrassed to call themselves conservatives, (especially with the tea party taking over their party) and outside of a few civil liberty issues, they fall squarely in the free market, evangelical wing of the Republicans.

Senator Rand Paul has inherited the mantle from his now retired father, Ron, as the leader of libertarians, but when you hear him opine on issues coveted by the religious right, he falls squarely in their camp every time.

Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul said on Friday affording the distinction to marriage to same-sex couples “offends myself and a lot of other people.”

In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News, the Kentucky Republican, who described himself as a “libertarian conservative,” made the remarks when asked about his views on gay rights. “I’m for traditional marriage,” Paul said. “I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Ultimately, we could have fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people.”

Paul continued, “I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we’re still headed.”

For Paul’s vision of equal rights for same-sex couples through contracts to become a reality, the first step would be have to be a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in June upholding state prohibitions on gay nuptials.

What a novel idea, Rand would go back thousands of years and just draw up contracts between two people instead of marriage. Wait, but couldn't a man and his favorite goat draw up a contract too?

If Rand Paul were serious about his libertarian ideology, he would support a woman having the right to decide what she does with her body, right? What was I thinking. Remember his love for " fetal personhood?"

“I think, and I often say in my speeches, that I don’t think a civilization can long endure that doesn't respect the rights of the unborn,” Paul concluded.


↓ Story continues below ↓

Digby:

This is why it's hard to take libertarianism seriously. This man is the acknowledged leader of that faction. And he is unable to say that it's none of his business who marries whom or admit that women own their own bodies (but says they do own their children!)It's inconsistent on such a fundamental level that it gives away the game: he's either whoring for the social conservative vote or he's philosophically incoherent. Libertarians believe they are the "principled" members of our political family and yet when push comes to shove the only principle most of them really care about is the one that says they shouldn't have to pay a dime toward the greater good.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.