I think I disagree with Paul on this, but I need some opinions...

[ZzzImAsleep]

I honestly can't say I understand all of these issues, so if someone could shed some more light on them I would be happy to listen.

My problem with what I see below is that I could really care less if gay people want to get married. To me marriage is not something that the government should be interfering with even if it is defining who can get married.....

...so opinions on this issue, and clarification of Paul's position on this one would be appreciated.:)

--------------------------------------------

Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.[192] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[192][193]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[194] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[195] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[196] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[197][198] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[197]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[125] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

[Kludge]

Paul's beliefs tend to lean more towards Baldwin's then that of an unbiased libertarian.

The only logical solution is to get The State out of marriage entirely (which tends to be the answer to most problems). That means no recognition of marriage, and no problems that stem from it.

[MRoCkEd]

"He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage."
This.

Here, have Jesse Ventura break it down for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXu-hzc6wZE&feature=related
at 2:10

[ARealConservative]

marriage used to be a religious institution where a relationship was validated in the eyes of god.

It is now a statist institution where a relationship is validated by the "state".

So now the question is, which state? the state state, or the federal state. The higher up the decision is made, the less liberty we have.

In a perfect world we would get government out of the marriage business altogether. In the meantime, lets prevent some distant government from deciding for us when it isn't necessary, and that is what Ron Paul is trying to do.

[FreedomRings]

Marriage should be like a private business contract... it's between two people and nobody else's business. The courts only get involved if there is a dispute the parties can't solve with each other.

[fr33domfightr]

Paul's beliefs tend to lean more towards Baldwin's then that of an unbiased libertarian.

The only logical solution is to get The State out of marriage entirely (which tends to be the answer to most problems). That means no recognition of marriage, and no problems that stem from it.

Why has any government entity ever been involved in marrying anyone? Historically, wasn't that always done in a church? I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet cities did this to generate revenue from Marriage Licenses. If municipalities weren't involved, this would probably have never been as big an issue.

In the end, Gay people who do get married or have a civil union shouldn't be discriminated against due to sexual orientation. My understanding of what occurred in California was the court determined that a civil union was not equal to marriage, even if the rights were largely the same. I haven't researched this at all, I'm just repeating what I've heard.


FF

[rpfan2008]

nobody understood what nuclear energy is when Max Planc was experimenting with 'critical mass', only later everyone realized when Trinity/Hiroshima etc. happened. Similarly everyone will understand the effect of such policies when someone will define marriage as union of a human and a goat or a hen. But sadly that day legacy of paul will be totaly erased from the commoners conscience. He will be an unperson(1984).

If you think this is a joke/sarcasm, think again.

[FreedomRings]

Why has any government entity ever been involved in marrying anyone? Historically, wasn't that always done in a church? I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet cities did this to generate revenue from Marriage Licenses. If municipalities weren't involved, this would probably have never been as big an issue.


FF


In the US, marriage licenses were introduced to prevent interracial marriages. Now any man can marry any woman but the license requirement still remains.

[pinkmandy]

Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage

Because this is not a federal issue.



which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages

He supported this because states should not be forced...again, it's a state issue *if* it's an issue at all- that has to be decided locally, not by federal mandate


Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts

So no SC hearing forcing all states to go along w/whatever the SC decrees. Keeps marriage as a state issue.

It's all perfectly consistent, imo, w/keeping gay marriage as a local/state issue. Ultimately, like many of us, he doesn't think anyone should be barred from entering into voluntary contracts and it isn't the govt's place to sanction contracts made between consenting adults.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Similarly everyone will understand the effect of such policies when someone will define marriage as union of a human and a goat or a hen.

I'll worry about that when a goat or a hen can legally sign a contract.

[James Madison]

I agree. Marriage is a personal commitment that shouldn't be any business of the government. If I had it my way, just about all government benefits of marriage would be ended.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I agree. Marriage is a personal commitment that shouldn't be any business of the government. If I had it my way, just about all government benefits of marriage would be ended.

Those 'benefits' is why gays want 'gay legislation'.

Personally, I think they are doing themselves a great disservice lobbying
for those 'rights'. Why would anybody want to lobby away their rights
and lobby for a contract that restricts them???

In the future I see, (future of a free society) 'marriage contracts' will gradually
dissolve and be known as a major control factor issued by the state/federal
authorities.

Hunter


p.s. Dr. Paul's stance IMO is that it's already local law, why make it Federal law?

[rpfan2008]

I'll worry about that when a goat or a hen can legally sign a contract.

RFID

[mediahasyou]

Marriage should not be decided by the state. Leave it up to the churchs to decide.

All individuals should pay the same taxes. A mother with 5 children should have to pay the same taxes as a married man. It makes no difference who you are. Equality under law begs that all individuals are respected in the same manner.

[Thomas Paine]

Paul's beliefs tend to lean more towards Baldwin's then that of an unbiased libertarian.

The only logical solution is to get The State out of marriage entirely (which tends to be the answer to most problems). That means no recognition of marriage, and no problems that stem from it.

I was unaware of this view until now. Originally, marriages were conducted by only the Church, which had its own set of laws (Canon Law) and own set of ecclesiastical courts, etc. However, when the ecclesiastical courts were combined with the civil courts, then marriages came under the purview of civil laws and civil authorities. Essentially, Ron Paul is advocating is a return to the original state of marriages whereby marriages are removed from the purview of civil laws and civil authorities. Whether this is practical or not, I just don't know at the moment for various legal considerations.

[1000-points-of-fright]

RFID

Radio Frequency ID?

[SLSteven]

What does the government know about love, faith, commitment, etc.... They should stay out of marriage. Paul especially wants the to limit federal government intervention. If government has a role, it would be more appropriate on a local level.

[qh4dotcom]

Like many other issues...if gays want to get married...go ahead...it's none of my business...I couldn't care less..not my problem, doesn't affect me.

With over 50% of people getting divorced...it's not like marriage is something that is meaningful in this society.