PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on Gay Marriage Legislation




bobbyw24
08-05-2010, 04:02 AM
Congressman Ron Paul's position on the role of federal judges in the gay marriage debate.

by Jake Morphonios

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul does not believe that the issue of gay marriage is a matter to be decided at the federal level. He has said that the effort of a federal official to change the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." He stated further, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." The issue of gay marriage is one to be decided at the state-level by the citizens of the state, as the people of California did when they passed Proposition 8. Ron Paul supported the Defense of Marriage Act to ensure that the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause continued to allow one state to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.

Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Had this legislation passed, today's headlines might have been different.

Today a federal judge in San Francisco, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that the California Constitution violates the US Constitution by refusing to recognize gay marriage. While opponents of homosexual marriage are disappointed, some are breathing a sigh of relief. The ruling, which favors gay Americans, is unlikely to result in the kinds of violence, personal intimidation and property destruction perpetrated by pro-gay activists relating to the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot initiative.

Prior to the Prop 8 vote, Fresno Mayor Alan Autry spoke in favor of the ballot initiative from City Hall. That week, both he and Pastor Jim Franklin received death threats from Prop 8 opponents. Property belonging to the LDS Church in Orangevale was spray-painted with insulting messages and an affiliate group of the Trans/***** organization known as Bash Back! spray painted the church's walls and poured glue into the buildings locks. Several other churches of various denominations similarly reported vandalism, property destruction and harassment against their members by anti-Prop 8 activists.

Homeowners in San Jose with pro-Prop 8 yard signs awoke to find "No on 8!" messages spray painted onto their garage doors. Kelly and Tom Byrne were among the victims. "I can't think of a way that is more counter-productive, or against those kinds of beliefs than coming and damaging someone's personal property, trespassing, and really showing a message of hate," said Tom. Police noted a significant increase in politically motivated vandalism. Sergeant Mike Sullivan stated, "People are passionate about the issue, but we just ask that they make their points in the voting booth, not on other people's [property]. If they're caught, they could be arrested for felonies. That should be a concern to them." Regardless of such voter intimidation tactics, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of Californians.

http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/23/2008/10/27/320x240/prop8vandals.jpg

Following the vote, gay activists took to the streets in a union of mass protests. Cars, businesses and other property were vandalized in the demonstrations. Again, churches were targeted, including the Mormon temple in Los Angeles. At the scene of this particular protest, activists flooded the streets to halt traffic and police were called to the scene. After one protester jumped on top of a police car and physical aggression broke out, a number of activists were arrested. The violence continued, with the windows of Mormon and Evangelical churches being shot out by protesters in Utah and Florida.

more

http://www.nolanchart.com/article7900.html

bobbyw24
08-05-2010, 05:28 AM
Bump-very timely

YumYum
08-05-2010, 05:38 AM
I think when gays resort to violence, it weakens their position. They lose that caring, sensitive touch that they are so noted for. :D

bobbyw24
08-05-2010, 05:40 AM
I think when gays resort to violence, it weakens their position. They lose that caring, sensitive touch that they are so noted for. :D

They could start the Pink Panthers and intimidate voters--I am sure Herr Holder would have kein Problem mit das

james1906
08-05-2010, 06:33 AM
They could start the Pink Panthers and intimidate voters--I am sure Herr Holder would have kein Problem mit das

There's the Pink Pistols who advocate for self-defense, but too many gays are stuck in the liberal mindset where guns are bad.

ChaosControl
08-05-2010, 07:24 AM
The ruling, which favors gay Americans, is unlikely to result in the kinds of violence, personal intimidation and property destruction perpetrated by pro-gay activists relating to the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot initiative.

I think I'll side with the non-violent types. But yes it should be a state issue. It isn't really about civil liberties as you can still do as you wish in your home and you can still "marry". It is only about legal recognition of it and that should be a matter that is decided locally.

Anything that doesn't directly violate a civil liberty (as in it doesn't restrict what you can do in your home that doesn't harm non-consenting individuals) should be decided locally.

eqcitizen
08-05-2010, 07:33 AM
To be perfectly honest this should be a non-issue for all governments, federal or local. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be confined to ones beliefs. Why the government is in the business of wedding people is beyond my comprehension.

VBRonPaulFan
08-05-2010, 10:15 AM
To be perfectly honest this should be a non-issue for all governments, federal or local. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be confined to ones beliefs. Why the government is in the business of wedding people is beyond my comprehension.

Because married people get 'perks' for being married, like being able to sign up on your spouses' health insurance, be the benefactor of an estate, etc. There are legal ramifications whether you wish to ignore them or not.

eqcitizen
08-05-2010, 12:02 PM
Lew Rockwell has a post on this today (in it he talks about immigration as well) and i think he is spot on:

"I have many problems with the US constitution, but it is the legal regime we are told we live under. Marriage, to take one example, is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and therefore is no business of the federal congress, the federal courts, nor any other arm of the DC leviathan. The feds, according to their own constitution, have only the powers they are specifically given. Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage, nor throw out a voters’ ban on welfare for illegal aliens, to take an earlier example. On the other hand, the Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.

Unfortunately, in the American system, there are only states rights. This was a mistake. There should also be town rights, county rights, etc. as Jefferson noted. If San Francisco wants gay marriage, so be it. If Dubuque does not, so be it.

Government took over marriage, a matter for the Church and subsequently other private bodies, in the 18th century, with the expected negative results. But having taken it over, it ought to be decentralized, not nationalized.

NB: while I can’t stand the foreign-government loving, war-mongering fundamentalist right, I do think they have one point. The heterophobes want to outlaw Church discrimination, that is, freedom. For many activists, government gay marriage is only one step towards even more totalitarian anti-discrimination laws.

But if marriage were an entirely private institution, or even highly localized, we could live and let live. I believe the Church is right, but if traditional Mormons want to practice polygamy in Utah, I really don’t think that is any of my business."Oh, and though the gay activists oppose it, same-sex unions ought to be available to two heterosexual spinsters or bachelors living together,for example, for tax and other reasons.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/62932.html

Southron
08-05-2010, 12:23 PM
The heterophobes want to outlaw Church discrimination, that is, freedom. For many activists, government gay marriage is only one step towards even more totalitarian anti-discrimination laws.


This is where we are headed.

Rael
08-05-2010, 02:39 PM
On the other hand, the Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.

]

I'm not so sure about that...the DOMA was on of the few laws the federal government has passed which involved an interstate issue.

Anti Federalist
08-05-2010, 02:43 PM
and an affiliate group of the Trans/***** organization known as Bash Back!

I Lol'ed at that.