Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Posts for June, 2013

Will The Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up

Jim Burroway

June 26th, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has had quite a whipsaw of a day. This morning, he appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program to talk about the Supreme Court marriage decisions. Beck said that today’s decisions opened up the possibility that “one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men” can  get married. Paul took Beck’s lunacy a step further:

I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this,” Paul said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning. “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,” the Kentucky Republican continued. “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.”

Paul walk that statement back a couple of hours later in an interview on Fox News:

“I don’t think it will be with multiple humans, and I think it will be human and human,” Paul said on Fox News. “I didn’t mean that to mean anything other than that I think the government will still probably be involved in defining marriage to a certain aspect. I don’t think we’re going on towards polygamy or things beyond that.”

And a few hours after that, Paul’s transformation was complete when he told ABC that the Republican Party will simply have to “agree to disagree on some of these issues.”

Rand Paul on DOMA3

Timothy Kincaid

June 26th, 2013

Rand Paul, darling of the Tea Party, weighed in on the DOMA3 ruling: (ABC)

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

“As a country we can agree to disagree,” Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. “As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.”

Republicans have, on whole, been pretty muted in response. This may well indicate that the party has abandoned its desire to pass a federal marriage amendment and even its ‘litmus test’ on the issue.

Rand Paul’s Long Game For Defeating Same-Sex Marriage

Jim Burroway

April 8th, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) calls for a tactical retreat on the federal level in the short term in exchange for a thirty-year state-by-state ground game:

(at 5:29) I think that we’ve got a long history with marriage. I’m not willing to give up on it yet, and the family unit, even above and beyond America and before America, the family unit is something that has come about for thousands of years, you know. We’ve had a family structure and thing it’s an important structure. And not everybody in the country is going to agree with me on that. You know, there are people, and young people seem to be changing their opinions. But I think we should still be in favor of what what we’re in favor of. And that there is a traditional family unit and that it’s important.

The law is going to be someone different in the sense of where marriage is adjudicated, whether it’s at the federal level or at the state level. We’ve always had marriage certificates and we’ve had them at the state level. If we keep it that way, maybe we can still have the discussion going on without making the decision go all the way one way or all the way the other way. Because I think right now if we say we only believe in a federally-mandated one-man, one-woman marriage, we’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we were to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe 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.