Browse By

Rand Paul Votes For Discrimination In Public Schools

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2093 to S.Amdt. 2089 to S. 1177 (Every Child Achieves Act of 2015)

Statement of Purpose: To end discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.

rand paul favors discrimination against kidsWhen Rand Paul announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, his followers proudly said that their candidate would be able to cross party lines and appeal to liberals as well as conservatives.

Yesterday, Rand Paul proved that these initial promises were nothing more than crass political maneuverings.

An amendment was offered to an education bill in the Senate yesterday. That amendment would have prohibited public schools from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.

Rand Paul voted against the amendment. He voted to preserve discrimination against kids and teenagers, rather than to stop it.

That’s the kind of action a leader seeking to reach across party lines.

Rand Paul isn’t anything more than just another in a long line of nasty, mean-hearted Republicans who care more about pandering to their party’s extremist evangelical base than they do about being decent to other human beings.

55 thoughts on “Rand Paul Votes For Discrimination In Public Schools”

  1. frank says:

    ..you liberals are just retarded. Discrimination is already prohibited in the Constitution. Useless bills..piling up papers over papers. In the mean time people CAN’T safely walk on San Francisco….

  2. J Clifford says:

    I have safely walked through San Francisco many many times.

    I have never walked ON San Francisco. I’m not that big, Frank. But then, I guess I’m just a retarded liberal.

    Why is Rand Paul voting against legislation to uphold people’s constitutional right of protection from discrimination?

    1. frank says:

      Because discrimination is already prohibited…lol. Do you get it..?

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Frank, same sex marriage was also already prohibited by the constitution, according to the Supreme Court. So why did we need a Supreme Court decision? For a similar reason, we need legislation to protect the rights of school aged kids.

        J Clifford et al. — Recent PBS programs have highlighted children, some before the age when they enter school, who are transgender. These kids tell us more about the reality of the transgender phenomenon than I ever learned from the interviews with Bruce (Kaitlyn) Jenner. I think if Rand Paul watched those PBS shows, he might change his mind.

        1. frank says:

          Marriage is not a right, first of all, never has been. And the Government should stay out of that business. Period. Having a car is not a right. Taking a poop is not a right. If we havecto regulate as roght any interaction between human beings..then Muslims have the “right” to poligamy…and is a right also to be incestuous..or marrying yoyr own daughter or mother..or son. These are people’s private businesses. Scotus should have never taken that case. Period. Now since the marriage business have been unconstitutionally deemed a right,.and across the 50 States..where is the dame equal treatment of my 2nd amendment across the 50 States? And that one IS a right!!! You liberals worry only about the rights that suits you…how disgusting. In the merit of the kids…if they feel discriminated thet are already protected, and is more a common sense issue than another stupid law to be put on the book.

          1. J Clifford says:

            Frank, equal access to the legal status of marriage is a right.

            Period.

            If you don’t agree with that, you don’t understand the Constitution.

          2. frank says:

            Wrong. Marriage is not a constitutional right, point it to me. Equal access to the “law” is a right, due process, 14th amendment. You haven’t answered on the 2nd, butchered and not observed equally. Double standards…

          3. J Clifford says:

            Frank, think. Marriage is not itself a specific constitutional right. Equal access to the legal status of marriage is.

            Show me where in this article or in any comments but yours anyone has brought up an argument against 2nd amendment rights, and I’ll start discussing that completely separate issue that you’re bringing up in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand: That Rand Paul is standing with extremist evangelical homophobes against Americans’ constitutional rights.

          4. frank says:

            Exactly. But that’s not what the Scitus ruled on. The Scotus decision “created” a non existent marriage right. That’s why Scalia and Thomas were fuming!!! On the 2nd..c’mon man..some States and cities gun laws again the obvious word of the Constitution ste obviously complete disregard for the document. There is only one gun law..and it’s the 2nd. On the kids..that’s not a priority for the Country…and what these kids are being discriminated for? Lol..you guys have nothing better to worry about? What about your friend Obama that fucked up the Nation for the past 6 years? And you call out Rand Paul…really? How objective…

        2. frank says:

          Sorry for the typing errors. Small keyboard..

  3. frank says:

    ..Sorry for the typing errors..small tablet/keyboard

  4. J Clifford says:

    No, I am afraid I don’t get it, Frank.

    Kids are being discriminated against.

    Yes, the Constitution forbids discrimination, but the Constitution, unless it is applied in law, is nothing but an abstraction. The only ways the Constitution can get applied in law are by a court ruling after a lawsuit, which takes a huge amount of time and an immense amount of money, an Executive Branch administrative action, which won’t apply to local school administration in this case, and laws passed by Congress.

    Rand Paul is taking a stand AGAINST the Constitution by refusing to go along with efforts to apply it. In fact, Rand Paul is acting in direct opposition to efforts to apply the Constitution’s prohibition against unequal administration of the law.

    1. frank says:

      Sure…figured you didn’t get it. You libs got your priorities on bs. I am sure the transgender kids is one of the Country’s top priorities…right?
      We agree on the fact that the Constitution is observed as it fits to the ruling class…now is Obama and his cohorts butchering it.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Frank, you seem to be willing to say how you really feel. Your opposition to same-sex marriage, and the kind of protection of transgender kids Rand Paul has opposed — all that comes from your belief that homosexual conduct in any form should be illegal, as it is in other countries, and once was in the U.S. — isn’t that what you’re really saying? And if so, why don’t you just come out and say it?

        1. frank says:

          No it is not what i am saying! Guess the IQ required to understand simple things is higher than what you presently possess. First of all, again, marriage is not a right, no more than friendship or other human interaction. These mania of regulating everything is a typical liberal disease of the last 10~15 yearsp. No one has ever been forbidden from engaging into an homosexual relatonship lately if i am recalling correctly. What is about then? Renaming an homosexual relationship as “marriage”? To what purpose? Benefits? That is already regulated by civil law: cohabitation, shared property..even adoption! So what is it if not pure retardation syndrome. And, in the matter of these school kids..how exactly do they get discriminated against? Are they forbidden from speaking? Forbidden from attending school? Are they enslaved in chains? Flogged?

        2. frank says:

          Let me add something for both of you. Where does this nonsense stop? Because let me tell you if we want to be “fair” then we need to be fair all the way: we need to “protect” marriages between father and daughter, grandma and niece, mother and son, three or more womem to a man..or three or more men to a woman..and push it further, kids with more than 2 parents! 3, 4, 5 ..why not? If we must be fair!!! Will you “approve” this “sanctioning”, which has no purpose at all, from the Government? If not..you are bigots!!

          1. EricD says:

            A quick path to full on right wing nuttery.
            Started pretty far down the path to start with Frank. Doesn’t show much intellect seeing the world in black and white and accusing one side of being retarded.
            “liberals are just retarded”

            What’s retarded is refusing to enact something that you agree should be protected. You’ve shown a pretty vast ignorance about what the constitution means or how it relates to legislation.

            Now, you’ve gone full idiot with the slippery slope argument.

            Back down from your prejudices and look at what differentiates religious marriage and legal marriages. Then maybe you’ll understand why two consenting adults entering into a contract with legal obligations and rights (which is what a legal marriage is) deserve equal protection under the law.

            Do you understand that in the eyes of the state marriage ceremony is meaningless? The only point of any importance legally is the signed sworn and witnessed statement. Secular or religious, hours long or minutes, the rest is fluff.

            As with any fallacious slippery slope argument, “Where does this nonsense stop?”, it stops when a majority of people agree that it’s nonsense.

          2. frank says:

            A reply to the fresh idiot of the village. Look man, i do not argue with the right of same sex couples wanting the same benefits as heterosexual ones. It’s understandable. They are available and they are great benefits…why not? My points are: 1) Government should stay out of the marriage business and put forth rules only pertaining to kids and their well being, if they come to be in the relationship. Period. Nothing else. Inheritance, property should be just an agreement between the two parties.
            2) Constitution, you probably are reading a different one. In mine, the US one, there is NO right to marriage. And calling me idiot, insults also justices Scalia and Thomas, who know a lot more than me and you combined. You have the right to equal protection under the law. Now,and I can’t make it more simple, if a State has marriage equality laws THAT equality clause applies to THAT State under the Constitution. IF a State does NOT have marriage equality laws, than the equality clause doesn’t apply, because there is no specific law to stand on. What the Scotus has done..was creating a new civil rights out of nothing, just pulling that out of their butts. Last time i checked..it was Congress that can amend the Constitution.
            3) At what point we set any limits ? Why don’t you answer? Now you are the bigot that wants to limit marriage then!! Since we have this new “out of the blue right…then marriage between siblings will have to be permitted, and the same for polygamist marriages or group marriages!! That’s common sense…and you liberals are still retarded.

          3. EricD says:

            That’s right, in true rabid RW fashion I’m a village idiot because I don’t follow your beliefs. I’ll wear the moniker with pride.

            Perhaps you can address issues without the false dichotomies of faith based and polarized politics. Perhaps not.

            1) You’re grossly under-informed about what secular legal marriage grants in the for of rights and obligations. “Inheritance, property should be just an agreement between the two parties.” Perhaps. Marriage is simple short form for exactly that. It is also short form for a host of other agreements.
            What exactly do you think state sanctioned marriage bestows on people that is offended by the inclusion of same sex marriages and that government should not be involved in?

            2) The constitution guarantees equality under the law. Marriage bestows property and legal rights (exactly what you say the state should be involved in, definition of rights in a defined agreement between individuals and enforcement of those rights). It is equal access to those rights that makes equal access to legal marriage mandatory. A state doesn’t have to have a marriage equality law to make marriage law equal. By virtue of ALL laws needing to be equal any law concerning legal marriage (common property, legal rights & obligations, hospital visitation, inheritance, and countless other issues covered by legal marriage) must be equal.
            And you’re under the misconception that the constitution is a law. The constitution is what laws must adhere to. So yes, even if you think something is covered in the constitution clarification in law is often required.

            3) You fail the reading test. I answered very clearly to you when and where it stops. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
            For example:
            Lower Speed Limits?!? When will cars be banned!
            Raise Speed Limits?!? When will it end and there will be speeders going 200mph on the interstate!
            Do highway codes result in banning cars? No. Does raising the speed limit where safe result in uncontrolled driving? No.
            Is marriage defined as the contractual agreement between two siblings? No.
            Between more than two people? No.
            Is there a non-discriminatory (based on sex, religion, ethnicity) or non-religious reason to limit the definition of the two people entering a marriage to two people of the opposite sex? No.
            Do you understand the difference between the (legally meaningless) marriage ceremony (which as per your wishes the government has no influence) and legally binding marriage contract (which bestows property and other legal rights)?

          4. frank says:

            In a true rabid LW fashion, you called me names as well, so i thought about returning the favor, in the name of equality.
            Now…Marriage is not “defined” as a contractual agreement betwen siblings or groups….and neither as a contract between two people of the same sex. Historically, for thousands of years has been always defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. There is NO question about that. Back to 2015..we want to recognize “marriages”, call them whatever you want, between same sex couples, fine! I am ok with that! Then we must legally recognize, as well, any other form of “marriage” (or whatever uou want to call it) between ANY person, or even groups. There is no religious implications heroe, i am referring to the pure legal institution. Fairness across the board. No way around it. And you should have no objection whatsoever. See why i want government completely out? Zero all the handouts and let people define the terms of their union amongst themselves, just like any other contract. Religiously, people will continue to celebrate their own things, from the pure religious point of view. Clear?
            On the Scotus decision, read the objections raised by Scalia and probably, you’ll get it. Marriage is NOT a right and secondly has always legally recognized as a union between man and woman. Definition has not changed since the beginning of time and has been assimilated into secular law, in stone. Purpose was obviously to protect the smaller brick of the big edifice we call Society, organized in Government etc. Now, you want to change the definition? Fine..but as long the States have powers to decide if the definition has to change or not, you fall under the laws of that State. If same sex union is not classified as “marriage”, beat it. The Constitution doesn’t protect that becauae there are no civil rights violations and regards only material matters, benefits etc. The Scotus had no right to forge” a new right at all. What is that hard to understand? In comparison, for instance, what is happening with a non right, marriage, has not happened with a real one, the right to bear arms!! The RIGHT is not uphold across the 50 States..and i can be a legal concealed carry owner in Texas…and a criminal in NY! We have come to this unbelievable absurdity!!!

          5. EricD says:

            Simplistic over the top slippery slope argumentation.

            “we want to recognize “marriages”, call them whatever you want, between same sex couples, fine! I am ok with that! Then we must legally recognize, as well, any other form of “marriage” (or whatever uou want to call it) between ANY person, or even groups.”
            BS. What rights are being infringed between groups or “any” person.

            Marriage has changed throughout history. So that’s a piss-pour argument as well.

            Besides, history (unless it’s jurisprudence) doesn’t mean jack in a court of law.

            And thanks to a constitution that protects the rights of all citizens, states do NOT have the right to make definitions that are discriminatory.

          6. frank says:

            Thetefore poligamy must be accepted …and incestuous unions as well. Again, tbete is no way around it. The point i was trying to make is that Scotus had no right whatsoever to decide a societal transformation and fabricate a new right. That was an assault at the democratic process!! The discussion about gay marriage has been taken away from the people (States) by 5 unelected kings. 5 people decided a new “right” to be born for 320 million!! Is this Democratic ? Marriage, again.
            , is no more a right than friendship. The “accessories” to marriage created by the law, are benefits no rights!!! Just like the benefits you get from being a Veteran!! The status of being a “veteran” is well defined and only a democratic process can change the definition and expand or contract benrfits! Same for marriage!!

          7. EricD says:

            More rambling.
            “Thetefore poligamy must be accepted …and incestuous unions as well. ”
            Where is the right of polygamy entrenched in the constitution? Or incest? How does anti-poligamy or anti-incest laws infringe on basic right or constitutionally required equal treatment?

            And don’t get your britches in a knot. Don’t like the SCOTUS interpretation, change the laws to something that can’t be interpreted as discriminatory, or amend the constitution. Bet you would have been a right hypocrite if SCOTUS had ruled in the opposite direction, regardless of what dissenting judges might have written.

          8. frank says:

            What an hypocrite moron you are. And WHERE is the same sex marriage in the Us Constitution? Actually…where is marriage in the Constitution?? No, i don’t like that 5 unelected judges FABRICATED a right that does not exist! These social changes must happen WITH representation!

          9. EricD says:

            Marriage law protects individuals in a contract between them. Limiting that contract to a contract between members of opposite sexes denies equal protection.

            And for you other arguments:
            Not permitting marriage between siblings is not discriminatory. It applies to any sex, any ethnicity, any age, any religion.
            Not permitting marriage between groups is not discriminatory. It applies to ALL groups.

          10. frank says:

            Ok.ANSWER the question!.WHERE is same sex marriage marriage in the US Constitution, and, in general, WHERE IS marriage in the Document? I will tell you where they are: next to polygamy and siblings marriages…just next to them. LOL

          11. frank says:

            And just to be clear, Scotus should not have taken the case AT ALL!

  5. J Clifford says:

    Frank, what you don’t understand is that if constitutional rights don’t apply to everybody, they don’t really apply to everyone.

    Rand Paul and his right wing followers are willing to throw cultural minorities and students and LGBT Americans under the bus in their attempt to grab power.

    Rand Paul is completely without any principle except the principle of putting self-promotion first.

    1. frank says:

      Left wing nutteries! Sure..Rand Paul wants to put them in concentration camps. Lmao.

  6. Petra Posta says:

    YAWN.

    1. frank says:

      Eaxctly…instead of worrying about majpr problems. Transgender teens discrimination my ass..

      1. J Clifford says:

        Okay, Frank, so what you’re really saying is that discrimination against groups you don’t belong to doesn’t matter.

        That fits with the Rand Paul agenda very well.

        1. frank says:

          What discrimination? Exactly how these groups are discriminated against? They put them in chains? Are they forbidden from going anywhere? Forbidden from attending schools? From speaking? Define the discrimination.

  7. thedogfacedboy says:

    This is a quote I saw from Franken, the idjit who sponsored this tag-on addendum to the No Child Left Behind:

    Bullying of LGBT students is “becoming an epidemic,” he said, citing three boys who committed suicide after they were being harassed by classmates who believed they were gay.

    Why don’t you at least try and show some consistency of thought on this website. You earlier were against the Federal Government getting too involved with citizen behavior such as monitoring their communications. Someone on here said that the level of potential terrorist activity in the U.S.A. did not justify that excessive intrusion.

    So here’s a knucklehead Senator if I’ve ever seen one, who justifies this ammendment (which he has tried on its own unsuccessfully to get out of committee for years, and can’t even do that) who justifies this additional level of Federal government intrusions into the running of our local schools by citing an anecdotal case about three kids.

    If the Federal government would just take over all schools in the country, I’d say just do whatever you want. But aren’t the way schools are run best left to local government? I shop locally, live locally, eat locally. Why do we keep building more inefficient Federal infrastructure and laws into every aspect of our lives? Is this really an “epidemic” (wow, just like the Ebola “epidemic”)?

    When the description uses the term “perceived” in it, I see vagueness coming, and a lawyer-driven mess.

    1. frank says:

      ..and besides, bullying in my world is fought with a nice ass kicking. This pussyfication of America needs to stop. Kids getting punished for pop tart guns…wearing US patriotic tshirts. All liberal non fucking sensr.

  8. thedogfacedboy says:

    If you can kick the a+_ss of someone bullying you, that’s fine.

    But what about the laws protecting nerdy kids, red-haired-freckled kids, ugly twin kids, kids who pray aloud, kids who drink strawberry milk, fat kids, skinny kids (kids who climb on rocks…obscure reference)poor kids with cheap clothes, kids who have odd parents?????

    I’ve seen all of those types bullied while I was in school. Back in my day, we didn’t really recognize “gay” kids (let alone trannies) but we did have sissy kids that were beat up. Probably a couple of these website guys were some of them.

    Why do gay kids get a special law? Why don’t red-haired kids get mentioned in the law?

    Human interactions sometimes are vile and cause friction. It has always been so, and always will be, until we socially evolve enough as a species. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

    1. frank says:

      Exactly. We have been fine for decades..but now we need laws to protect kids in schools? And when ate we going to have laws on how to take a dump..? Lol…liberalism is a mental disease…

      1. J Clifford says:

        When you say “we have been fine for decades”, Frank, I think you mean “my kind of people have been fine for decades”.

        1. frank says:

          “My kind”? Lol…wht kind are you? I thought we were all humans here? Is there another kind of humans populating these planet? Did you read the previous post from the other dude? Should we get laws for fat kids, skinny kids, red head freckled? When will you lean to leave people alone my fascist liberal control freak friends? Leave it to the families, stay out of our fucking daily lives!!!

          1. J Clifford says:

            When America tried the “leave it to the families” approach to dealing with inequality, we got slavery, women who couldn’t vote, and children working in factories, Frank.

          2. frank says:

            Really Cliff? When was the last time you have seen a slave in the US? Or a woman forbidden from going to vote?..we have a black President if you didn’t notice…unless you are just now coming out of time capsule buried in the 40’s.

          3. J Clifford says:

            Welcome to 2015. Discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, cultural minorities, and GLBT Americans is still rampant – and leaving it to the families hasn’t made it better.

            So now we’ve got Rand Paul, who has joined the right wing fringe of the Republican Party in declaring that it’s “religious liberty” to have the government continue to discriminate against people he doesn’t like.

            Your argument here has been that we can’t offer equality to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students, because if we did that, we’d have to offer equality to everyone… which is actually what the 14th Amendment requires.

          4. frank says:

            Forget that stupid useless law, that wouldn’t do nothing to change people behaviour. Let’s comment on the first sentence, 2015 America. Please tell me, how the categories named by yoy are discriminated today? Mostly after the civil right act prohibited ANY. Give me some concrete examples…make me laugh. Don’t just simply say it, like liberals usually do, prove it. Which recent case of discrimination against minorities, women, or gays can you recall ? Instead… I’ll give you a recent case of discrimination and civil rights violation: the Christian bakery case in Oregon. Why that one is not brought up..my liberal friend? Is freedom of religious expression not a civil right anymore in your America?

          5. thedogfacedboy says:

            So silly.

            “leave it to the families” is not what resulted in slavery. Governments, both repressive and progressive, both allowed slavery for many years.

            Women voting? America got that right universally, in 1920. That’s well before many other so-called “progressive” countries, France, Spain, etc. Greece didn’t get it until 1952!

            Sometimes you don’t even put a decent chain of thought together…..

            But the bottom line is that you will fail if you try to achieve “equality” (whatever silly way you define it) through legislation. Did we stop all drug use by making some of them illegal?

            What needs to happen is people’s minds need to change. Forcing them to swallow bitter pills down their throats often achieves the opposite result. I don’t think I have been successfully convinced very often to change my mind by the hyperbole and rhetoric that I see here or on “Mother Jones” or “Vox”. It is mostly just garbage ideological barrages of cra_p.

            Knowing all the gay friends and co-workers I have met over the years has done more to raise my acceptance level of them than any school brainwashing might have done. I still think on the scale of human behavior they have a mental disorder, 😉 … but don;t most of us in some way?

          6. frank says:

            Exactly. Leave people alone and Government must stay out of people’s business. Enough interference. We established rules that allow equality of treatment in front of the law and we have well established civil rights achievements. We don’t need rules on every second of a human being life.

  9. thedogfacedboy says:

    “…And you’re under the misconception that the constitution is a law. …”

    The constitution is a law. It is the definition of a fundamental law, which is a type of law.

    1. EricD says:

      Well, yes it’s “fundamental law”. But not what the local court or officials base their decisions on. And that’s the point.

      1. frank says:

        Yes they do! Ultimately they must..is the supreme law of the land!!! Omg…

        1. EricD says:

          Can you appeal to the constitution in a municipal court? No.
          How far up do you have to go?
          So no, having something in the constitution isn’t enough to guarantee the execution and defense of those rights.

          1. J Clifford says:

            EricD, you’ve uncovered the sham of Libertarian politics: We don’t live in a village of 500 people where we can just walk up to the judge and make an appeal to justice. We actually need laws to enact the principles that the Constitution introduces – and we need a government to enforce them.

            It’s what we’ve chosen to do – democratically.

          2. frank says:

            Sham of what? Libertarians ideas are lightyears ahead. You guys are backward 500 years. I want to free all the marriages you don’t, Applying the principles of fairness but only to what you and the other idiot deem worth? If same sex couples can marry than polygamy is as lawful and intermarriages between siblings as well. You just can’t pick and choose what is wrong and right at your leisure.Fascists.

          3. frank says:

            So can the Municipal Court rule OUTSIDE the US CONSTITUTION and rule as they please?

  10. frank says:

    Still, you two, haven’t explained WHERE are the examples of discrimination in today’s America against Women, minorities. You are good at saying stuff..but as evidence; 0 or -0.

  11. Charles Manning says:

    J Clifford, I think Frank might have raised a genuine question that has gotten lost in the cacophony. You say Rand Paul (along with scores of others) voted against a law that “would have prohibited public schools from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.” Exactly what discriminatory acts was the proposed legislation intended to prevent? Are there examples we could discuss? Actual events that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students have asked to be outlawed? How would the schools themselves discriminate? Would the legislation have reached bullying or other private acts?

    1. frank says:

      ..finally…

Leave a Reply

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

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!