Connect with us

homepage news

Rand Paul says same-sex marriage ‘offends’ him

Potential 2016 contender backs the idea of contracts for equal rights

Published

on

Rand Paul, American Conservative Union, CPAC, Conservative Political Action Conference, Republican Party, libertarian, Kentucky, United States Senate, U.S. Congress, gay news, Washington Blade

Rand Paul, American Conservative Union, CPAC, Conservative Political Action Conference, Republican Party, libertarian, Kentucky, United States Senate, U.S. Congress, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (Washington Blade photo by Lee Whitman)

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.

The potential 2016 contender, who’s won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference the last three times, is reportedly prepared to announce his candidacy for the White House next month.

Ian Sams, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said Paul’s remarks demonstrate the potential candidate’s true colors as far-right conservative.

“By saying he’s willing to broaden the GOP’s tent and reach out to new constituencies, Rand Paul is trying to pull the wool over our eyes,” Sams said. “Saying marriage equality ‘offends’ him gives us yet another glimpse of Paul’s true colors — a restrictive, retro social agenda that sets back LGBT rights and questions longstanding gains in civil rights. Support for marriage equality is at record highs, and most Americans now live in states where it’s legal. What’s truly offensive is Rand Paul’s insistence on being stuck in the past and failing to support equal rights for LGBT Americans.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
195 Comments

195 Comments

  1. Dean Cameron

    March 7, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    I see. "Separate but Equal". Got it.

  2. Brian Latker

    March 7, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    So this is a win-win situation.

  3. Laura Cabrera

    March 7, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    He didn't say marriage EQUALITY offends him. He is for equality. He wants to remove the word marriage from the tax code. It's just one more thing that is connecting religion & state. We should call everyone in a partnership (gay or straight) as being in a "civil union" in the tax code and if you want to "married" for religious reasons that is your prerogative, but you still need to have a "civil union contract."

  4. Seth Thayer

    March 7, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Remember, Rand Paul is also for labeling drinking fountains "black" and "LGBT" and "Straight white guy"

  5. John W Beck

    March 7, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    You offend me Rand Paul – so, who's life and feelings means more when writing laws for us all to live by? Bully Offensive Neanderthals like you?

  6. Christopher Gable

    March 7, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    That's just not true. You're completely disingenuous. He said "contracts between non married adults". That's not even civil unions, that's Hawaii's "reciprocal benefits" idea from 20-plus years ago.

  7. Cody Reed

    March 7, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Christopher Gable She's trying to pawn that same argument on Twitter. It's not working.

  8. Robert Meyers

    March 7, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Libertarians are not against Marriage equality and choice. PAUL is a LIAR. He is nothing but a reactionary

  9. Elliot Dowling

    March 7, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    He doesn't seem to understand what Libertarian means.

  10. Scott Supak

    March 7, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    "We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people.”

    His grammar offends me.

  11. Frank Colantuono

    March 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    Who cares what Rand Paul or other bigots "want"? There are people who "want" segregation of blacks and whites! There are people who "want" to deny woman to vote! If it's unconstitutional, than it's irrelevant of what anyone "wants"! It's un American to be a bigot and Rand Paul doesn't deserve to be in office in this Great Country! I know I don't want someone like that representing me!!!

  12. Stephen Driscoll

    March 7, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    Bad toupees offend "myself"

  13. Dave Edmondson

    March 7, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    The actual Libertarian Party supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples back when tax-spend-and-regulate Democrats were reenacting sodomy laws.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    March 7, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    Back in 2010, Rand insisted he wasn't a libertarian — that that label was "an albatross" others were trying to hang around his neck.

    I believed it then. I see no reason not to believe it now.

    I'm not sure "conservative" works for him either. There needs to be a single word for "I'll say whatever I think I have to say to get the people I'm in a room with at this moment to like me."

    Romneyan, perhaps?

  15. Michael Paul

    March 7, 2015 at 11:57 pm

    Sorry but he is a LIAR and pandering to the right for the primaries…. God forbid he becomes the republican nominee….if he does watch the biggest flip flop you have ever seen….

  16. Jeffery Reynolds

    March 8, 2015 at 12:06 am

    Yes, it is "offensive" to give someone the same privileges you have. Got it, thanks. By the way, the 1950's called and they want their bigotry back.

  17. Olivia Ashley

    March 8, 2015 at 12:14 am

    …He is NOT a libertarian, y'all. Also, I think what he's REFERRING to is that it's the GOVERNMENT that offends him for even trying to get involved in the matter. He's saying that marriage contracts SHOULD be with whomever, and he has repeatedly said this in multiple interviews and articles. He IS for traditional marriage, but does not feel it is the government that should step in and decide who gets married to whom. Goodness. Y'all just read the headlines and just go from there, huh?

  18. Carlos Góes

    March 8, 2015 at 12:16 am

    He said he wants to have private marriage contracts between individuals legalized and same rights for all… So he basically supported marriage equality. And you come up with a headline like that?

  19. Bill Gorrell

    March 8, 2015 at 12:21 am

    The Pauls are faux libertarian stalking horses for corporate feudalism.

  20. Joel Mielke

    March 8, 2015 at 12:28 am

    "…which offends myself and a lot of people.”
    Rand Paul is obviously confused by object/subject pronouns, so he goes for the (always incorrect) reflexive.

  21. Jeff Montgomery

    March 8, 2015 at 12:35 am

    His being offended offends me. He just flushed the GLBT vote and half the libertarian votes down the drain.

  22. Debbie Sprague

    March 8, 2015 at 12:57 am

    ah, so rand wants to make ALL marriage illegal. cool. then all the fundamentalists will be adulterers.

  23. Debbie Sprague

    March 8, 2015 at 12:58 am

    it means whatever ayn rand says when i get it on with her corpse. which is, of course, a protected libertarian act.

  24. Debbie Sprague

    March 8, 2015 at 12:59 am

    and we all know that millions of straight american men were jailed for sodomizing their wives. that video of ron and nancy proves it.

  25. Dennis Colasurdo

    March 8, 2015 at 1:02 am

    There's only two internally consistent libertarian approaches to this situation. 1) All consensual conjugal relationships between adults share exactly the same legal status or 2) no law may be passed regarding consensual conjugal relationships between adults. Either one works just fine, but when you split that issue you're not a libertarian any more. A utilitarian, perhaps, but not a libertarian.

  26. Bobby Oliver

    March 8, 2015 at 1:09 am

    If these politicians, and bible-thumpers could throw us off buildings to our deaths like ISIS, they would. If they could put us in concentration camps surrounded by razor wire, they would. We seriously have to watch out for these people. If given a "legal" chance, they would institute their interpretation of "biblical law and worldview," not unlike the Sharia laws that they whine so much about. To borrow the quote at the top of the page, "I don't like Rand Paul…he offends me and many others…"

  27. Sean Avidano

    March 8, 2015 at 1:24 am

    Rand is not Ron. People need to stop thinking of the two as equals. Rand Paul has a LONG WAY to go before he'd be anything like Ron Paul. Rand is just another GOPer that's going to cater to where the money is that pads his campaigns.

  28. Carl Struble

    March 8, 2015 at 1:49 am

    Rand Paul, is not worth a warm bucket of puss! And you can quote me on that.

  29. Martin West

    March 8, 2015 at 3:03 am

    it is sad that he feels he needs to flip flop in order to get the GOP nomination, if you think this is anything more then to try and do better then his father in the primaries, then you have never herd him talk before he wanted to be president,

  30. Neil Kehl

    March 8, 2015 at 3:45 am

    ……..and you know what? RANDY Paul "offends MYSELF and a lot of other people, TOO!!!!!!!!!!"

  31. Hawaii Gay Singers

    March 8, 2015 at 3:15 am

    Rand Paul does not fool me for second.

    A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. No matter what he calls himself.

    Mr. Paul, that's too bad,if giving me the same marriage rights as you "offends" you. Maybe YOU getting equal rights to me offends me. Does that mean I have a right to first class citizenship (with all the rights that go along with that) and you only get a lesser set of rights ……. simply because I "and a lot of other people" don't happen to like you.

    Speaking of being "offended", some people in your part of the country especially, were quite offended when the Supreme Court struck down, in 1967, the Virginia law that forbade blacks from marrying whites. Some people are STILL offended by the sight of an interracial couple. Should that couple get LESS rights than you or me because, as you put it regarding gays, "a lot of other people" are offended ?

    To sum it up, you're an idiot, Rand Paul.

  32. Ray Knitterman Whiting

    March 8, 2015 at 3:19 am

    "It offends me" = "I can't control my own emotions and keep my opinions to myself about things that don't really even concern me or affect my life." Tough nuts, Mr. Paul.

  33. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:52 am

    There is no separate but equal in Paul's statements. He wants government to not decide who gets married at all. He wants contracts for straight and gays.

  34. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:54 am

    BS,how blind are you he wants government out of marriage completely and wants contracts between adults straight and gay.

  35. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:55 am

    Elliot, contracts between all people gay and straight with the government TOTALLY out of it IS libertarian.

  36. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:56 am

    Contracts between all people gay and straight with the government TOTALLY out of it IS libertarian. He wants government to not decide who gets married at all. He wants contracts for straight and gays.

  37. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:56 am

    Bill Gorrell BS. The Pauls are real libertarians and want contracts between all people gay and straight with the government TOTALLY out of it IS libertarian. He wants government to not decide who gets married at all. He wants contracts for straight and gays.

  38. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 4:58 am

    BS, Paul does NOT want segregation of blacks and whites. He is for the RIGHTS of ALL. He said he wants Contracts between all people gay and straight with the government TOTALLY out of it. He wants them equal through contracts.. He wants government to not decide who gets married at all. He wants contracts for straight and gays.

  39. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:01 am

    Didn't you read what he said? He is against all government marriage. He wants contracts between individuals to make us all equal, gay and straight. He personally doesn't like gay marriage called marriage.

  40. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:02 am

    Didn't you read what he said? He is against all government marriage. He wants contracts between individuals to make us all equal, gay and straight. He personally doesn't like gay marriage called marriage. He isn't against anyone.

  41. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:03 am

    Didn't you read what he said? He is against all government marriage. He wants contracts between individuals to make us all equal, gay and straight. That is totally Libertarian. He personally doesn't like gay marriage called marriage.

  42. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:04 am

    Didn't you read what he said? He is against all government marriage. He wants contracts between individuals to make us all equal, gay and straight. That is totally Libertarian. He personally doesn't like gay marriage called marriage. Most of the right is against taking government out of straight marriage, are against contracts for all.

  43. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:06 am

    Are you blind. He said he wants to give gays the same privileges as straights, by getting rid of ALL government sanctioned marriage, and instead having contracts for ALL…All means equal.DUH

  44. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:07 am

    LOL, making legal marriage not legal will NOT make them adulterers, because they will marry in ceremony on their churches. At least you got what he said.

  45. Kirby Whosoever Harris

    March 8, 2015 at 5:08 am

    No he didn't, if they listen to what he said. He said personally he didn't like it being called marriage. And is against all government marriage. He wants contracts between individuals to make us all equal, gay and straight.

  46. Bradford Kinne

    March 8, 2015 at 5:27 am

    Contracts are, by definition, legal documents, which inevitably involves the government. Is Rand Paul proposing to ban all marriage or just gay marriage?

  47. Bradford Kinne

    March 8, 2015 at 5:30 am

    Hello Kirby! "Contracts" will inevitably involve the government. That he does not think "gay" marriage should be called marriage means he's a bigot.

  48. Richard Wade

    March 8, 2015 at 5:44 am

    The Eddie Haskell of politics can take his offense and carefully insert it back into the organ that produces all the rest of his opinions.

  49. Kurt R. K. King

    March 8, 2015 at 6:32 am

    Actually, this is right in line with Libertarian philosophy. Marriage is a religious institution, it's no business of government. The only reason it's an issue is due to the tax incentives involved. If a church marries gay couples it is up to them, likewise if they decide not to. The contract formed between two people is a legal document, but Bradford seems to think that the gov should be involved, forgetting that contracts are entered into by the thousands every day without any form of government. The only situation where they would be is via a judge when there is a breech or some sort of dispute.

  50. Kurt R. K. King

    March 8, 2015 at 6:41 am

    Hey…geniuses…when a couple is "married" what exactly does that mean to you? Do they pledge themselves to each other or to the government? I think you naysayers really need to examine what he's saying here. True liberty is allowing individuals to make their own life decisions, without government interference. It is also means defending the rights of others even if you're offended by their actions. Marriage is a contract between two individuals, and the government has no business deciding who can enter into one. Think about this before you get all bent out of shape.

  51. Kurt R. K. King

    March 8, 2015 at 6:45 am

    Bradford, why do you so incessantly believe that contracts involve government? They CAN involve government, however, the majority of all contracts don't have, nor ever will, anything to do with government.

  52. Brian Ferguson

    March 8, 2015 at 6:45 am

    I'm gay and married to my partner, my first boyfriend whom I met 25 years ago only in September past. I am strangely in agreement with him. Keep religious businesses and practices out of all state facilities. The state has no business sanctioning who can or cannot join in union. Furthermore keep this fictitious bullshit out of the schools, all schools – period. It offends me that children are being lied to in an institution for the sharing of FACTS. Its only mention in schools ought to be to tell kids some deluded people actually believe this drivel.

  53. Alan Arthur Katz

    March 8, 2015 at 7:13 am

    The Dems got it right this time. Rand Paul has been making conciliatory murmurings toward the LGBT community for the last several months. Now he's facing his Tea Party base, his core of vicious, hate-driven bigots that drive these conservative PACs and organizations, not to mention the TeaPublican primaries. So now, he's toeing the bigot party line, but trying to get away with "separate but equal", which is not going to happen. Justice Kennedy would never vote for that.

    He's planning to etch-a-sketch, like Mitt Romney, reset his convictions once the general election starts. But etch-a-sketch is a strategy that only worked before the Internet. Now his words that "same-sex marriage offends me" will come back to bite him on the ass over and over again.

    Not a smart move when 63% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Not smart at all. He's going to foot-in-mouth himself right out of this election, just as Ben Carson is doing.

    He just lost the entire youth vote, most women, all gays (and their families) and most people who give a damn about equality.

    Good.

  54. Christopher Evans

    March 8, 2015 at 7:16 am

    Don't you know? Everyone's equal, but some people are more equal than others.

  55. Christopher Evans

    March 8, 2015 at 7:18 am

    Brian Ferguson The thing is, marriage IS a contract. A social contract. There's nothing religious about it at all. Most people marry out of love and convenience (So that they may pass their belongings to their love in the case they die, so that their love is taken care of.) It's nothing more than a social contract, and religion doesn't have to be involved in it, period.

  56. Christopher Evans

    March 8, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Kirby Whosoever Harris Frank didn't say Paul said that. He said there are "people" who want segregation. There's a difference. He used the discrete "people" and didn't point out an individual. You really should read what other people post instead of generalizing.

  57. Christopher Evans

    March 8, 2015 at 7:28 am

    Wow is all I have to say. The dumb is strong with this one!

  58. Alan Arthur Katz

    March 8, 2015 at 7:43 am

    Rand Paul is planning an etch-a-sketch. He's been making conciliatory sounds towards the LGBT community for some months now, refusing to come out against same-sex marriage.

    Now he's running. His pollsters got ahold of him, and told him he's gotta come out against Marriage Equality, because the primaries are run by TeaPublican bigots, and he's got to throw them some red meat. So now he's suddenly "offended" by same-sex marriage. The plan is, once he gets past the primaries, to do a Mitt Romney etch-a-sketch and turn on a dime for the General election.

    That was OK in the days before the Internet. Now, his "offense" at LGBT couples marrying is going to come back and bite him on the ass, over and over again. He just gave away the huge youth vote, most women, 63% of the general electorate, all gays, their families and everyone who believes in equality.

    He's got a foot-in-mouth problem not unlike Ben Carson. Some people foresaw this – that Marriage Equality was going to be the TeaPublicans' Achilles heel in 2016.

    They were right. You can't run on Equality while campaigning on a platform that demands discrimination against LGBT Americans. They just haven't quite figured that out yet.

    This is their new "47%".

  59. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:52 am

    I offends me as well. He like myself however doesn't wish to use the force of big government to force our personal biases onto others. He (like myself) beleives that government doesn't belong in the business of regulating marriage in the first place. There's a difference between having a beleif and forcing it on others. Rand Paul 2016!

  60. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Christopher Evans Government doesn't have to be involved either.

  61. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:57 am

    No. Mitt Romney is a corporatist washington insider. Rand Paul is a man who beleives in change and limited government. Rand Paul has later on stated that he beleived the nation was ready for a libertarian Republican. I think he was referring to himself.

  62. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:57 am

    No. Mitt Romney is a corporatist washington insider. Rand Paul is a man who beleives in change and limited government. Rand Paul has later on stated that he beleived the nation was ready for a libertarian Republican. I think he was referring to himself.

  63. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:59 am

    He beleives in getting government out of marriage completely. That's as libertarians as you can get, moron. You are a modern liberal with no sense of what real libertarianism is. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage, but choose not to force it on other people. That's how libertarianism works.. putting personal biases and government aside and letting people choose for themselves.

  64. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 7:59 am

    He beleives in getting government out of marriage completely. That's as libertarians as you can get, moron. You are a modern liberal with no sense of what real libertarianism is. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage, but choose not to force it on other people. That's how libertarianism works.. putting personal biases and government aside and letting people choose for themselves.

  65. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:03 am

    You're an idiot. He has a personal dislike of homosexuality but chooses not to use the government to force his idea of marriage on anyone. That should make you happy. Instead, you are being an asshole simply because he doesn't beleive what you do. You have it set in your mind to be hostile to anyone who doesn't embrace what you think they should. YOU are the bully offensive neanderthal.

  66. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:03 am

    You're an idiot. He has a personal dislike of homosexuality but chooses not to use the government to force his idea of marriage on anyone. That should make you happy. Instead, you are being an asshole simply because he doesn't beleive what you do. You have it set in your mind to be hostile to anyone who doesn't embrace what you think they should. YOU are the bully offensive neanderthal.

  67. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:03 am

    Modern liberals aren't concerned with intellectual thought and facts.

  68. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:03 am

    Modern liberals aren't concerned with intellectual thought and facts.

  69. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:04 am

    You aren't worth a 1/9 of a Rand Paul, and you can quote me on that.

  70. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:04 am

    You aren't worth a 1/9 of a Rand Paul, and you can quote me on that.

  71. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:07 am

    You are dense. He has his personal religious biases against homosexuality, but he chooses not to force them on others. That's very admirable and frankly, he'll the the vote of this college youth 10 times out of 10. He beleives in liberty and the right to make decisions for yourself. You beleive in ramming the LGBT agenda down everyones throat. You aren't even half the man Rand Paul is.

  72. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:07 am

    You are dense. He has his personal religious biases against homosexuality, but he chooses not to force them on others. That's very admirable and frankly, he'll the the vote of this college youth 10 times out of 10. He beleives in liberty and the right to make decisions for yourself. You beleive in ramming the LGBT agenda down everyones throat. You aren't even half the man Rand Paul is.

  73. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Nobody can please you people unless they go to pride marches on a monthly basis. He has his own personal biases, but chooses not to force them on others. That's a very admirable position and one that people should take on all social issues like this. Live and let live. He beleives in the freedom to choose for yourself.. You people beleive that you have to love homosexuality or you're evil and thus try to ram the LGBT agenda down everyone's throats. Rand Paul is the real lover of liberty.

  74. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:14 am

    You're a modern Liberal to the core… thoughtless and and morbidly closed minded to anything other than left wing talking points. Try some Libertarianism, it'll get rid of the rotten taste of collectivism and media bullshit.

  75. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:15 am

    He beleives in getting government out of marriage completely. How can you get more libertarian than that? I don't think you know what libertarian means.

  76. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:15 am

    He beleives in getting government out of marriage completely. How can you get more libertarian than that? I don't think you know what libertarian means.

  77. John Marcus Cook

    March 8, 2015 at 8:22 am

    People on here have no clue what libertariansim is. They seem to think they are modern social liberals with capitalist views. That is WOEFULLY misrepresenting the cause. Libertarianism simply means "Let it be", "Live and let live." Libertariansim doesn't mean you have to actively support or approve of homosexuality. It means you don't force those personal biases on others using the power of government because you beleive everyone has the right to choose for themselves. Anyone who actually knows anything about Rand Paul knows that is what he beleives, and it's frankly the position all religious folks should have. You should be applauding his support for your ability to choose without government interference.. Instead, many of you deride him because you think he should conform to your morality views. You are just as bad as the far right neocons.

  78. Austin Bennett

    March 8, 2015 at 9:26 am

    Kirby Whosoever Harris But that's not what he said.

  79. Austin Bennett

    March 8, 2015 at 9:27 am

    Kirby Whosoever Harris Then why didn't he just say that??

  80. Bruce P. Majors

    March 8, 2015 at 10:05 am

    There are many words for that: Clintonesque, Obamanoid, politician.

  81. Bruce P. Majors

    March 8, 2015 at 10:07 am

    Seth if you are just going to lie and be a simpleton you aren't contributing.

  82. Bruce P. Majors

    March 8, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Yes, those people are called Democrats. They've been kidnapping poor black children for decades and selling them to educrats (who incarcerate them in failed "schools" before the send them to prison), in exchange for major donations to Democratic Party candidates.

  83. Bruce P. Majors

    March 8, 2015 at 10:12 am

    Since 1972, when the Libertarians first presidential candidate was a relatively openly gay John Hospers. Followed by a second presidential candidate in 1976 who was also gay though not as openly, Roger McBride.

  84. Tom Brown

    March 8, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Kirby Whosoever Harris Ah, but government grants the approval of marriages and divorces, which greatly affects the terms for holding wealth and directing it to succeeding generations . Are you saying Rand wants to repeal all laws that confer spousal benefits and inheritance rights?

  85. Harry Parker

    March 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Rand Paul offends a lot more people.

  86. Nathan Earl

    March 8, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    You should re-read it again. He is for straight marriages and gay contracts. The contracts having exactly the same benefits except the name. Only the name is different. So yea it is separate but equal.

  87. Brett Fairchild

    March 8, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Why would he have just lost the youth vote and the vote of gay voters? He just took the libertarian position of getting the government out of marriage completely. That's what libertarians believe. He said that everyone should be treated equally.

  88. Forrest Loftis

    March 8, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    So this genius Ian Sams has decided Paul is hard right wing ? Hope his pea brain wasn't overtaxed by the effor ! Of course he is hard right wing, you ass ! That's why we will vote for him !

  89. Dianna J. Salzer Marschke

    March 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    John Marcus Cook. Exactly WHO would ajudicate the terms of these contracts Paul speaks of? Would it be the judiciary perhaps? How then does that remove the government from marriage?

  90. Dianna J. Salzer Marschke

    March 8, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Kurt R.K. King so that means that the government would only be involved in just over 50% of marriages. Got ya…

  91. Ted Remington

    March 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    So let me see if I have this straight (so to speak). Randy Paul believes a privte contract between two people gives the two people rights which MUST be allowed by a third person who is not a party to that contract. A and B enter into such a contract and shortly thereafter A enters hospital. Then C, hospital, a private corporation run by a RWNJ, bars B from seeing A on her deathbed because B does not have a copy of the contract with her and A dies while B is trying to find her contract. Meanwhile, D and E, who say they are married to one another, are in the same situation. C Hospital, being ever mindful of treating everyone equally, says, "E, you may not go into that hospital room until you provide us with a copy of your marriage license, said copy to be a true copy with a raised seal so we know you are not trying to pull a fast one. Yep. That's gonna happen. And Beelzebub is out front with the sno-cone concession.

  92. Elliot Dowling

    March 8, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    When he submits his first piece of legislation undoing heterosexual marriage from a governmental perspective, I will believe you. Until then he's just another right wing bigot.

  93. Paul Fulgione

    March 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Kind of sounds like "separate but equal." Didn't the Supreme Court already address that issue?

  94. Paul Fulgione

    March 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Kind of sounds like "separate but equal." Didn't the Supreme Court already address that issue?

  95. Dontae Kennedy-Harrison

    March 8, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Are you people idiots? Listen, he himself as a Republican and me being a Republican too, but more importantly, I don't care if he's against or for gay marriage. He has his beliefs. But the one thing he states is that he respects it if it was a State decision, not a federal decision. He feels that this is an issue that should be left up to the states.

  96. Dontae Kennedy-Harrison

    March 8, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Are you people idiots? Listen, he himself as a Republican and me being a Republican too, but more importantly, I don't care if he's against or for gay marriage. He has his beliefs. But the one thing he states is that he respects it if it was a State decision, not a federal decision. He feels that this is an issue that should be left up to the states.

  97. Dontae Kennedy-Harrison

    March 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    First off, as a black man, I find it questionable and quite frankly a little offensive that you're taking separate but equal out of the context that was used. Separate but equal was used to justify segregation on a massive scale along the lines of race. Not sexual identity. So let me ask you a question. How is it separate but equal if homosexuals can get married as the same as heterosexuals, but it has a different name to it? Besides I'll give you the true definition of separate but equal: It was a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional law that justified and permitted racial segregation, as not being in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens and other federal civil rights laws. Jim Crow laws were based on hate. These gay civil union movements are based on religion.

  98. Les Hann

    March 8, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    Once again the Headlines do not correctly reflect the article or video clip. I believe he is speaking of the government being the sourse that offends him. He thinks the government shouldn't be involved with marriage. However, to comply with the tax laws and requirements there should just be a civil unity. Not a mrriage but a contract between two people to uphold their responsibilty for tax purposes. He has explained his position in other vodeos and writings so I recommend everyone to research that information. So this seems to be another attempt to misinform where Rand Paul stands on a certain topic. Every individual has their own opinion on this topic. It shouldn't matter what my opinion is to you just as your opinion shouldn't matter to me. I believe marriage can oly be defined by the two people getting married in a way that they believe to be correct. We do not need the Government to tell us what is right wrong or even having the power to rule what is a marriage.

  99. Sid Farkus

    March 8, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    Impractical and delusional. Once marriage equality is legal in all 50 states, you'll see him become a supporter and "evolve" or claim he was "misunderstood". Even the Libertarian Cato Institute supports marriage equality – they've filed an amicus brief. http://www.scribd.com/doc/257982032/Cato-Institute-et-al-Amicus-Brief

  100. Dave Girvin

    March 8, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    So which is it a religious institution which should have no government involvement or a legal contract enforced by the government? It's a legal contract enforced by the government not a religious institution, that would be unconstitutional due to separation of chuch and state. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, it protects the participants assets from going to the state.

  101. John Richter

    March 8, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Mixed race marriages offends many. Does Rand advocate making them illegal?

  102. John Richter

    March 8, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Fake Libertarians offend me.

  103. Manuel Alvarado

    March 8, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Brian Ferguson Marriage is not always religious union, but a civil one and all americans are entitled to the same civel rights, gay of staight. Don't let the GOP confuss the issue, all churches have the right not to marry same-sex couples without retribution!

  104. Sid Farkus

    March 8, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Dontae Kennedy-Harrison No one has monopoly use on the term "separate but equal" same for any terms associated with the LGBT movement. They each apply as used for each movement – no need to read into it further. The answer to your question: Why not call it the same thing (marriage) if it's the same thing (mariage)? Kind of simple, huh? If "a contract" is such a desirable term, why aren't straight couples jumping all over themselves for the right to let people know they just got "contracted" or invite people to their "contract ceremony"?

  105. Eric Osterberg

    March 8, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    Rand Paul is a Repugnantan dirt bag who offends a lot of people and not just the LGBTs. He obviously looks at us a sub-humans and also cannot keep church from state separate.

  106. Eric Osterberg

    March 8, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Rand Paul would rather spend a lot of money to maintain more kinds of licenses and laws which would complicate matters more. We don;t have to call Rand Paul a human being either. :>)

  107. Eric Osterberg

    March 8, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Nathan Earl So more money can be made maintaining the extra paperwork! :>)

  108. Eric Osterberg

    March 8, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Rand Paul is a libertoiletian. :>)

  109. Guy-Micheal Arrol

    March 8, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Bigots gonna be bigots. Please get a sense of equality.

  110. Guy-Micheal Arrol

    March 8, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Slavers claimed their "authority" derived from their god. No different than you bigots trying to make others into second class citizens.

  111. Audrey Fisher

    March 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Sigh, Paul is a hack – but he has a paid troll here whining about nonsense. The legal status of Marriage should not be offensive to anyone. It is the term that the H8er's hide behind, period.

  112. Russ Turner

    March 8, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    Kirby Whosoever Harris I'm offended buy anyone who wants to subject me to a second rate citizen of the USA.. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults, nothing more. Many weddings between a man and a woman have no religious connection at all.

  113. Russ Turner

    March 8, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Kirby Whosoever Harris BS….Marriage is a legal contract. Contracts are law. The law is determined and regulated by……….the government.

  114. Liam Stuart

    March 8, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    Brett Fairchild
    . . . Because nobody talked about getting government out of marriage until gay people started getting married.
    One wonders what motivated that.

  115. Liam Stuart

    March 8, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    He says he is offended by the term marriage being applied to gay unions.

    The only reason to make separate distinctions is the same as it’s always been — so that those holding one distinction can be advantaged over those holding the other.

  116. Deryn Warren

    March 8, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    He is as embarrassing as so many of his fellow conservatives. Denying gay rights, climate change, stirring fake scandals. Wanting voter restrictions. Denying the value of eduction. Please vote this tattered old party (which is no longer grand) OUT!

  117. Deryn Warren

    March 8, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    He is as embarrassing as so many of his fellow conservatives. Denying gay rights, climate change, stirring fake scandals. Wanting voter restrictions. Denying the value of eduction. Please vote this tattered old party (which is no longer grand) OUT!

  118. Tim Hayes

    March 8, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    Kirby that is not what he said. He wants contracts for gays and marriage for straights.

  119. Tim Hayes

    March 8, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    Kirby that is not what he said. He wants contracts for gays and marriage for straights.

  120. Jay Wilkinson

    March 9, 2015 at 3:05 am

    Liam Stuart.
    Nobody has talked about removing government from marriage because the masses have been out to lunch for a very long time now. The government should have no say in our personal lives, as well as almost everything else. People are finally realizing what is most practical here. ;)

  121. Jay Wilkinson

    March 9, 2015 at 3:06 am

    Liam Stuart.
    Nobody has talked about removing government from marriage because the masses have been out to lunch for a very long time now. The government should have no say in our personal lives, as well as almost everything else. People are finally realizing what is most practical here. ;)

  122. Ian Alexander Halliwell

    March 9, 2015 at 7:17 am

    Guess what Rand Paul? Your religion and beliefs offend me, but you don't see me voting those away do you? That's what I thought.

  123. Samuel-Waen Jensen

    March 9, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    I applaud Rand. He has the correct answer. Changing the marriage law does offend a lot of people. Marriage is and always has been a religious sacrament. Equal protection under the law should be the goal not sticking government interference into a subject that has been purview of religious organizations for 1000's of years.

  124. George Clower

    March 11, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    Poor little baby. Rand, you must grow up before you can seek the presidency. It would seem that one who offended by love is probably inspired by hate. Get a life — oh, hell, just get out of our lives.

  125. oldoddjobs

    May 21, 2015 at 4:27 am

    Far-right, shriek! Ewwww

  126. Jedi Senshi

    May 26, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Rand Paul offends me & a lot of other people to. Also if same sex marriage offends Randy, he doesn’t have to one.

  127. Tom Kidd

    May 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    Dear Rand Paul: Your child molesting buddy Josh Duggar offends me.

  128. scalscott

    May 26, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Time to beat the drums and find a scapegoat that he can ride so that the ultra conservative’s will be motivated to vote for him.

  129. Joe Lee Henderson

    May 26, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    good to know this guy’s a “libertarian”

  130. Ivyteainn

    May 26, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Corrupt politicians offend me. Yet, I’m stuck with a Capitol building filled with them.

  131. Dave Koch

    May 26, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    Yeah, well the politics of your phony social issues outrage for the purpose of raising money offends me. Ya pig.

  132. danielistical

    May 27, 2015 at 12:52 am

    Senator Paul,,,what Duggar did is a CRIME in all 50 states,,, what gay people do is still a crime in about 12 states , and shrinking,,,,and as far as your silly sky god fella,,,HE DONT COUNT
    FOR NOTHING,,,,,,,,Gay people have been around longer
    than your superstitious religion has and will still be here long after it has
    fallen along the wayside with all the other silly religions,,,Dont worry you offend your fair share of people too

  133. danielistical

    May 27, 2015 at 12:52 am

    Senator Paul,,,what Duggar did is a CRIME in all 50 states,,, what gay people do is still a crime
    in about 12 states ,,,and as far as your silly sky god fella,,,HE DONT COUNT
    FOR NUTHING,,,

    • 02Dave12345

      May 27, 2015 at 11:44 am

      Lawrence v Texas made sodomy laws targeting gay people unconstitutional. The laws may still exist in 12 states but those states are powerless to enforce them. The only exception I’m aware of is Louisiana which has been using a loophole in the ruling to prosecute minors for gay sex. Targeting underage prostitutes trying to survive. The Lawrence v Texas ruling only applies to adults, 18 and over.

  134. Tax Tucker

    May 27, 2015 at 4:27 am

    Mr Paul, please don’t come to New Zealand. Our law will offend you and we can’t have poor little conservatives being offended now can we. Obviously our marriage law will have a disastrous affect on your heterosexual status, you might even become gay, or lesbian even! Please do stay right where you are, so you can be protected by your paranoia!

  135. Kenneth Vaughn

    May 27, 2015 at 4:49 am

    Know matter what your thoughts are, OR what you have to say about “Same Sex Marriage”, the bottom line is what GOD has to say about it. When HE, [Christ Jesus] returns, HE will NOT allow them to spend Eternal Life with him, period!

    • Libbyterrian

      May 27, 2015 at 7:25 am

      Actually, Ken, the bottom line is that in the USA there is a separation between church and state. Also, I think the saying you meant to type was “no matter what”.

      • Kenneth Vaughn

        May 27, 2015 at 9:30 am

        Your right. I’m not all that good in picking the right word use. I will correct that. Thank you!

        • Fred E Tanquary Jr.

          May 27, 2015 at 11:49 am

          You’re wrong, really, you’re wrong.

          • Kenneth Vaughn

            May 27, 2015 at 5:15 pm

            No, God did not “whisper that little titbit” in my ear. He told us from HIS unchanging word, the Bible. May God bless you and your family, and may HE enlighten your heart to the truth.

          • Bob Parker

            June 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm

            “He told us from HIS unchanging word, the Bible”

            You mean you read that book in the original, untranslated scrolls in the original, untranslated Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Wow, that’s impressive!!! I don’t know many linguistic scholars that can do that today!

            What, you say? You DIDN’T read the originals? You read the (insert version here) TRANSLATED, ENGLISH version of the Bible?

            Sorry to disappoint you, that is not an “unchanging” anything. Every time that book was modified, edited, adjusted, books inserted & taken out, translated, updated and “modernized” the content was changed to suit the needs of the person or persons making the particular version(s) you got, all the way back to the time of Emperor Justinian and beyond.

            That’s a LOT of man-made changes, prejudices and agendas being stuck into a book that has gone through a whole lot of tampering over the past 2000 years or so (really about 1500).

    • davidbronx

      May 27, 2015 at 10:23 am

      Another “man” who pretends to speak for God! Mind your own soul and let others take care of themselves.

    • 02Dave12345

      May 27, 2015 at 11:40 am

      I’m all for segregation in the after life, spending eternity with Christian fundamentalists sounds like a special kind of hell.

    • Neal Feldman

      May 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm

      Please keep your insipid fairy tales and imaginary friends to yourself. They have no relevance outside of your cult.

      • Kenneth Vaughn

        May 27, 2015 at 5:16 pm

        No “fairy tales and imaginary friends” here. Only the doctrine of Christ.

        • Neal Feldman

          May 27, 2015 at 8:22 pm

          IOW fairy tales and imaginary friends.

          Unless you can produce this deity you claim exists and prove his existence.

          Shouldn’t be any trouble for a being that is all-knowing and all-powerful.

          I won’t be holding my breath waiting for you to manage it.

          Oh, and which Christ? The long blonde haired blue eyed fiction?

          • Larry J Dunster Sr

            May 29, 2015 at 12:51 am

            You will find out on judgement day until then continue your ways because if you took a poll you would finfd that most of us don’t care about you

    • Bob Parker

      June 3, 2015 at 6:22 pm

      Bottom line for YOU maybe, but not everyone follows your religious beliefs. That’s why we have a 1st Amendment, to ensure that your beliefs don’t force any religious belief system on anyone else. The Constitution and its Amendments say that ALL citizens are to be treated equally under the law, period.

      Marriage, in the United States, is a matter of Civil Law. Therefore, it is not subject to religious scrutiny outside of the church. In your church, make whatever rules you want. Outside? None of your business.

  136. George Jacob Garcia

    May 27, 2015 at 5:24 am

    I just please ask that if you are going to take something out of context, don’t convey it as absolute validity. While Rand Paul does not personally advocate for same-sex marriage, he does not believe that the federal government should regulate it. He believes every individual has the liberty to do what they want, regardless of others opinions. He pretty much argues that religion has construed and skewed the perception of what “marriage” ought to be, and that this is the reason why it offends people whom are religious like himself. Furthermore, he believes that the “social contract” between two people should be mutual, and not regulated by federal government. It should be left up to the states….Rant over. For more proof, check link below.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage/

    • 02Dave12345

      May 27, 2015 at 11:50 am

      What Ron Paul supports is a state’s right to ban same sex marriage regardless of how the US Constitution might interpret the rights of same sex couples and the 1000+ legal benefits of a marriage license. Painting him as tolerant is taking his opinion out of context. Our Constitution protects ever citizen in every state from mob rule, Libertarians often disagree, they seem to believe we should have 50 separate governments. Laws passed on the whim of a local population regardless of the founders intentions. Many believe the laws in the South enforcing segregation during the Jim Crow era are Constitutional.

    • SICKOFTHELAPDOGMEDIA

      May 29, 2015 at 2:31 pm

      shhhhhh, You’re going to confuse the haters with facts

      • 02Dave12345

        May 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm

        The issue here is how these facts are interpreted and how that weighs against established precedent in Constitutional law. If Rand Paul wants to advocate ending all government licensing of all marriages, taking away the 1000+ legal benefits from everyone, I might support him and that would be true Libertarianism. Getting the government out of the regulation of marriage. Of course he’s not going to do this because he’s a politician who needs the support of the ‘traditional Christian values’ crowd. The issue is about equal rights for every citizen and the separation of church and state. Separate but equal has already been ruled unconstitutional and Christian ‘morals’ should have no role in deciding who gets a license and who doesn’t.

  137. greg drummond

    May 27, 2015 at 9:07 am

    So basically he wants a “separate but equal” solution to the issue. Sounds vaguely familiar…

  138. davidbronx

    May 27, 2015 at 10:21 am

    I’m with Jedi Senshi, Rand Paul and his entire ILK offend me but I don’t see him slinking back under the rock from which he came. I want to know why Republicans, Tea Partiers and Conservatives in general think only about SEX because that’s what this is all about for THEM. Passing judgement on others is one of the things they do best.

    For us, it’s getting the same rights as all other tax paying, law biding citizens and that includes marriage and divorce (50% of all hetero marriages end in divorce so what’s the big whoop?). Many of us have done what many straight people have not, and that’s serve our country in the military.

    It’s civil rights and no one is forcing your precious bigoted churches to marry anyone they don’t want to marry. The Catholic church for instance would not marry a couple who isn’t from their parish and it’s always been that way.

    Worry about your own souls and let us deal with our God.

    • Larry J Dunster Sr

      May 29, 2015 at 12:44 am

      So let it be called a civil union,you’ll have what you want and the others won’t be upset.As a Christian straight man I really don’t give a damn one way or the other what you people do,but you have those out there that like to stir up trouble on both sides

      • Theo Brinkman

        June 1, 2015 at 2:12 pm

        If it’s supposed to be the same thing, why should it have to be called something different? The country tried ‘separate but equal’ already. In practice it meant, ‘separate and blatantly unequal, but the people in power can publicly pretend otherwise by referencing a pretty slogan’.

      • Bob Parker

        June 1, 2015 at 7:45 pm

        Marriage is a contract offered by the State, not your church or any religion. Period. You, and people like you, don’t get to decide who does or does not qualify to receive a license for this State sanctioned contract. That is why these bans are unconstitutional.

        If religion had any place in the issue of marriage today, the entire subject would be one big cluster. Which church decides, based on what/whose rules? Are divorced people allowed to marry? Is divorce even allowed? What about cross-religion marriages? What about marriages between those who don’t practice a religion? How do you account for those who already have civil marriages, performed by judges, justices of the peace, etc.? There are thousands of marriages a day performed with NO religion involved at all.

        This has nothing to do with “stirring up trouble” and everything to do with equality. Plain and simple.

        • Larry J Dunster Sr

          June 3, 2015 at 4:07 pm

          Actually marriage is religious.The State government started handing out licenses to control disease and proper blood type then in later years they were just happy to collect money and the license rates just keep going up.Before the states did this you would go to a church leader and get a marriage performed.So you see you are wrong and all I’m saying is that if the homosexuals would agree to call it a civil union then the whacko Christian element would probably shut their collective pie holes and everyone would have what they want

          • Bob Parker

            June 3, 2015 at 6:16 pm

            Simply because you say “marriage is religious” doesn’t make it so, sorry. Secular marriage has been around a lot longer than your Christianity has. Try reading a few history books other than the Bible.

            “Before the states did this you would go to a church leader and get a marriage performed”

            Or a judge, or a ship captain, or a justice of the peace, or a mayor, or whole lots of people authorized to perform and register marriages, or they simply jumped the broom in front of friends & family and said “we’re married.” It was not a strictly religious observance. It only became so here in the US, although even here from the beginning there was a large element of secular marriages.

            As far as civil unions go, they tried that Grand Experiment in several states. It failed miserably. Bigoted and greedy companies used it as an excuse to treat couples unequally, denying well earned benefits because “they aren’t married” instead of treating it as an equal union. So much for “separate but equal” eh?

            The real solution is very simple. People mind their own f-ing business. I’ve been married to my husband socially for almost 17 years, legally for almost 7. We haven’t hurt anyone in that time, broken up or prevented any heterosexual marriages, the sky hasn’t fallen, civilization hasn’t collapsed, we haven’t destroyed any churches, we haven’t pulled anyone away from their religion – in short, nothing has changed. If all the Fundies would just MYOB then problem solved.

  139. ilkaisha

    May 27, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Rand Paul’s improper usage of the word “myself” is offensive to me. And what?

    • Kory Chatelain

      May 27, 2015 at 2:05 pm

      Really! And he going to run for President!?

  140. 02Dave12345

    May 27, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Kentucky’s constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage also bans civil unions, same sex marriages from other states and countries and any contract resembling same sex marriage. It’s one of the more extreme state amendments in the country. Here he is suggesting that civil unions would have been a good compromise.

    • Neal Feldman

      May 27, 2015 at 4:07 pm

      denying recognition of same sex marriages from other states is unconstitutional. It violates the full faith and credit clause.

      • 02Dave12345

        May 28, 2015 at 9:19 am

        Kentucky’s ban on same sex marriage has already been struck down by a federal court because of this and the state is appealing the ruling. It’s one of the bans before the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see Rand Paul challenged with the details of this issue since he represents Kentucky.

  141. JaySFO

    May 27, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Give that man a shovel. He’s going to need it in order to help dig the grave of that huge elephant.

  142. baruchzed

    May 27, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    That’s OK Rand, your ignorance, dishonestly, and christofascism offend me.

  143. Neal Feldman

    May 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    And you offend me and others.

    Sucks for you that being ignorant and stupid isn’t a protected group.

    And ‘Separate but Equal’ is neither and has clearly been proven so.

    You bigots do not own the word ‘marriage’ and you never have or will. Deal with it like the racists who opposed interracial marriage before the Loving ruling.

  144. Donkey Hotay

    May 27, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Randy Paul offends me.

    hth.

  145. raytheist

    May 27, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    Well, then he’ll just have to be offended. Nobody else’s problem but his own.

  146. Thomas Mandile

    May 27, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    Why was his position misrepresented in the headline? That was dishonest .

  147. Thomas Mandile

    May 27, 2015 at 11:45 pm

    I don’t think anybody should take anybody else seriously who says “That offends me.” Ever.

  148. StevesWeb

    May 28, 2015 at 7:16 am

    It has come to my attention that my marriage is causing emotional distress for Senator Rand Paul. To think that I might do harm to a Republican legislator, well, it’s like Christmas, innit?

  149. MarkIra613

    May 28, 2015 at 8:08 am

    Who gives a DAMN if gay marriage offends Rand Paul, or anyone else.

    This is the United States of America. We have a Constitution. It contains many articles and a heap of amendments. The 14th of those amendments contains something called an equal protection clause.

    As such, all that matters is if bans on gay marriage violate the Constitution, specifically that equal protection clause.

    So do these bans violate the 14th amendment? I cannot say.I’m not a constitutional expert, or even an attorney.

    But I know that denying a selected segment of adult society the opportunity to exercise a right accorded to straight couples is conspicuously unethical, and steeped in religious bias.

    And from a constitutional perspective, it seems to me like a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

    As a committed Jew, my religious views on homosexuality (and by extension, gay marriage) could be in sharp contrast to proper civil law.

    But as an American who embraces with unbounded affection that magnificent wall our founding fathers built between religion and government, I could no more support a civil law barring gay marriage than I could support a civil law banning pork.

    In other words, the cost of an open and fair society is the possibility that someone will do and say things others might not like.

    For some Americans, the cost of the First Amendment might be rap music, Holocaust deniers, Fox News, or “American Idol.”

    For others, the cost of the Equal Protection clause in section one of the Fourteenth Amendment might be gay marriage.

    As obnoxious as some might find these things, these annoyances represent a cup of water in the ocean of benefits to living in a country where citizens are – or should be – permitted to peacefully live how they like, even if that includes my gay married neighbors cooking ribs on the barbecue while debating if Brad Pitt has a cuter ass than George Clooney.

    • jmolyn1

      June 28, 2015 at 9:47 pm

      What a bunch of crap. Even in the Supreme Court decision last week, it did not predicate gay marriage on a protected class basis for homosexuals. The constitution provides equal protection for everyone based upon national origin, sex, ethnicity/race, religion but NOT on homosexuality. Homosexuality is a behavior. Before homosexuals are homosexuals they are males and females, All males and females in the US have the same rights. Period. This Supreme Court decision, because just because one single judge is just WRONG. Today, the President of the National Association of African American Pastors, who marched with Martin Luther King, urged all church members to engage in civil protest, no less fervently than the civil rights marches of the 60s, because this ruling is just as wrong as separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education, a black man is only worth 3/5 of a white person and a number of other Court decisions that have been reversed.

      As Justice Thomas stated, a court or a government cannot bestow dignity on anyone and there is not one word mentioned in any constitutional right about dignity being among those rights anyway.

  150. Christopher Zimny

    May 28, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    The headline is misleading. He says calling it ‘marriage’ offends him, since he believes ‘marriage’ is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But that does not mean he is absolutley against it.

    He has said many times before (recently on the Daily Show, for instance) that he finds a lot of things personally distasteful, but would not ban them by government decree based on his personal feelings because his personal feelings are just that — personal — and therefore irrelevant to policy making. Instead, he believes in letting others do what they will do. (Essentially, “I don’t like it, but so what?”)

    I’m not for Rand Paul, but let’s have some intellectual honesty here.

    • 02Dave12345

      June 16, 2015 at 12:22 pm

      Maybe if he said “I don’t like interracial marriage but I support the right of a state to make it legal, and I also support the right of a state to make it illegal. And BTW, I’m running for President of the United States”, you’d understand why people are bothered by his point of view.

  151. Larry J Dunster Sr

    May 29, 2015 at 12:40 am

    What’s wrong with you homosexuals having a civil union?It would solve the problems between both factions.You’ll have your benefits and the term marriage won’t be used ,seems like a win for both sides

    • Theo Brinkman

      June 1, 2015 at 2:19 pm

      Sure. It’s a ‘win’ to have your relationship reduced to a second-class status. Right.

      Maybe straights should be relegated to a ‘civil union’, so that gays can have exclusive use of the term for a couple centuries. Bet you’re not so happy with the idea when the shoe is on the other foot.

      Hint: Marriage has been a civil contract since before the founding of Christianity, Judaism, or any other known religion. If the people fighting against gay marriage were *really* against ‘changing the definition of marriage’, they’d be fighting to reinstate marriage as the sale of a man’s daughter to the husband. But women’s aren’t considered property these days, so that would look unseemly, so they cloak their bigotry in religion instead.

      • Larry J Dunster Sr

        June 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm

        You are so off base.You have been listening to the liberals that re-write history

        • Bob Parker

          June 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm

          Larry, you seem to have this rut stuck in your mind about Civil Unions. Try asking someone who lives in New Jersey about the effectiveness of Civil Unions and the discrimination they faced there. They FLAT OUT FAILED. Separate but equal is NOT a solution, it’s just another problem.

          • Theo Brinkman

            June 3, 2015 at 8:11 pm

            Separate but equal has *never* worked in this country.

            As for the definition of marriage comment, that I think he was actually responding to, it wasn’t until the 1840s that *any* state in the US granted married women *any* control or ownership of property *AT ALL* once they were married. They could not sign contracts, or even appear in court. They were, for all intents and purposes, the property of their husband. Upon divorce, they were left with whatever the husband deigned to grant them (often nothing, not even the right to see their children). That’s a practice we inherited from British common law, and it goes all the way back to biblical times.

            Maybe he’s familiar with the concept of a ‘bride price’, or a dowry? (Probably not, as it would require at least a basic instinct to acquire knowledge.)

  152. ELBSeattle

    May 31, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    If same sex marriage offends you, Rand Paul, the solution is astonishingly simple: don’t marry a member of the same sex. Problem solved 100%. The end.

  153. Islomane

    June 1, 2015 at 2:33 am

    I’ll tell you what will offend Rand Paul and others: the big F*** YOU! I’ll give you when you say my marriage “offends” you.

  154. Patricia Garvin Fox

    June 1, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    There is no right not to be offended.

  155. RayFoss

    June 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Taking such a stand moves him away from the liberty (libertarian) principles of his father.

  156. Matthew Crockett

    June 1, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    The problem with his position is that religious groups that support same sex marriage specifically describe the unions as bound by the same sacrament as what they offer heterosexual couples. To compel a religious leader to change their definitions is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

  157. Kennon

    June 2, 2015 at 10:37 am

    What this click bait piece of crap headline does not mention is just because something offends you doesn’t mean you want it to be illegal. It is fine he personally does not agree with same sex marriage but the fact is besides Bernie Sanders he is the ONLY person running for POTUS who has not supported laws against same sex marriage. Just because I think people who smoke dope are morons, but I still argue for them to have the right to do so. I think the KKK and the Black Panthers are a bunch of hateful idiots but I still would fight for their right to speak their agenda. Most of the commenters here need to read beyond the headlines and grow the hell up.

    • Larry J Dunster Sr

      June 3, 2015 at 4:15 pm

      It will never happen at least not until they are taught reading comprehension.If they read at all they still lack the ability to understand what they have read and in that lies the problem with every article written
      on social media and all news feeds

    • 02Dave12345

      June 16, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Rand Paul absolutely supports laws banning same sex marriage. He supports a state’s right to decide this issue. He supports every state constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage. Giving voters the right to decide who has full rights and who doesn’t, regardless if a court of law determines that these amendments are unconstitutional. In Rand Paul’s state of Kentucky, that amendment also bans civil unions and any contract resembling same sex marriage, it’s one of the most extreme in the country. Paul has never once voiced opposition to his own state’s amendment, he has only voiced support. Painting Libertarians as live and let live liberals is very misleading. There are some similarities on social issues but there are some huge differences.

      A Libertarian generally supports an individual’s right to discriminate in a place of business or as a landlord. Liberals believe that no person should be denied employment or services based on their race, sex, religion, orientation, etc. They believe it’s up to the federal government to protect the Constitutional rights of all people regardless of what state they live in.

  158. Rena

    June 16, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    All these comments are hateful toward Paul. When did our society become careful not to offend anyone who is within what is now considered right. I think Paul is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else is and it is actually very brave of him to do so since many are against that. George Orwell said “the further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” I just think that everyone can have there own opinions, people shouldn’t try to force there’s upon others. To me that’s the true definition of freedom.

  159. jmolyn1

    June 28, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    The problem many people have with the so-called issue of gay rights is that there is no such thing. There are rights for US citizens. Nowhere is anything mentioned about homosexual rights. Indeed, even in the Supreme Court decision last week, the decision was not based upon any constitutional law or on a protected class of homosexuals. All gays can get married, just like all heterosexuals. Gays are all about behavior. Federal law states that rights are the same for all based upon sex, national origin, race, religion but NO mention of how people act such as homosexuals.

    If one were to just set aside the “gay”aspect and refer to everyone in the US as male and female, gays are included in the ranks of male and female, then they have the same rights.

    Gays just do not want to admit that the fact that their homosexual orientation, no matter if it originated by birth or environment, is a disorder. Any species that has a trait such that it cannot of its own reproduce itself is a disorder. This is not to say it is wrong, bad, morally evil, etc. but it is a disorder, most likely a physiological disorder. The homosexual position is that society should change what is normal just for them. Now, that is morally wrong.

  160. Willow C. Arune

    July 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    i am deeply offended by Rand Paul. So he should be illegal.

  161. Thomas Gerard

    August 7, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    It would be political suicide in a backward state like Kentucky to say otherwise. Rand is a disciple of objectivist, atheist, pro-abortion Ayn Rand (close personal friend of his father). He has to feign these pseudo-christian beliefs.

  162. Christopher L Banacka

    February 3, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It may offend him, but he doesn’t think the government should be involved.
    Just like smell of pot offends me, i don’t think the government should be involved!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise

Published

on

Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots

Published

on

New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011

Published

on

shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular