Ron Paul Not So Much States' Rights When It Comes to Gays

[muzzled dogg]

http://m.zimbio.com/Ron+Paul/articles/f1jXNdN1XtK/Ron+Paul+Not+Much+States+Rights+Comes+Gays

[Doug8796]

He is the same as rand. The gov shouldnt recognize marriage, the church should

[Jinks]

He is the same as rand. The gov shouldnt recognize marriage, the church should

would he be in favor of eliminating all marriage privileges currently granted to married couples?

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8D1p_yuMg

[Vessol]

He is the same as rand. The gov shouldnt recognize marriage, the church should

I wish Ron would focus more on this and not focus on stating his personal opinions on the matter,

Government has no right to regulate any marriage.

[Brett85]

This thread should be deleted. We already had a long discussion on another thread. DOMA actually preserves states' rights. It doesn't take them away.

[Brett85]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8D1p_yuMg

Wow. This is even more of a mess than I realized. More special benefits given out by the federal government. Talk about big government.

[BuddyRey]

I gotta say, the Doc left me and many other civil libertarian supporters a bit cold on this one. There's no defense for a federal "defense" of marriage. I felt sure RP would understand that.

[Brett85]

I gotta say, the Doc left me and many other civil libertarian supporters a bit cold on this one. There's no defense for a federal "defense" of marriage. I felt sure RP would understand that.

All it says is that the federal government won't give out tax benefits to gay couples, and one state won't be forced to recognize gay marriages in another state. Ron is taking the small government position.

[Sola_Fide]

I see the gay mafia is out en force today trying to tear down Ron Paul.

[hard@work]

would he be in favor of eliminating all marriage privileges currently granted to married couples?

From my understanding yes, with exception of the courts which can enforce contracts for marriage or "civil unions". I respect Dr. Paul's religious beliefs on issues I know we may not agree upon and always assumed he does the same. This is a foggy one though and I am also worried about it moving forward.

[Brett85]

From my understanding yes, with exception of the courts which can enforce contracts for marriage or "civil unions". I respect Dr. Paul's religious beliefs on issues I know we may not agree upon and always assumed he does the same. This is a foggy one though and I am also worried about it moving forward.

Lol. It's as if Ron Paul came out and said that homosexuality should be criminalized.

[Tonewah]

Government has no right to regulate any marriage.

Huzzah!

[Acala]

In an extensive interview with Stossel, Dr. Paul said gays should be allowed to marry. So maybe somebody is just confused about what the bill does or doesn't do or undoes. I know I am.

The answer, as usual, is to keep government out of marriage entirely at every level.

[Brett85]

In an extensive interview with Stossel, Dr. Paul said gays should be allowed to marry.

No he didn't. He just said that anybody should be allowed to enter into a contract, which is different from marriage.

[Mini-Me]

All it says is that the federal government won't give out tax benefits to gay couples, and one state won't be forced to recognize gay marriages in another state. Ron is taking the small government position.

In the strictest and most cynical sense, this is technically true, but it only tells part of the story: In this case, it's kind of a "selective" small government position that technically reduces the scope of government, but it doesn't go all the way, and the actual name of the act provides the motive for "why." I don't really begrudge Ron Paul for merely voting in favor, but I've always considered it a minor letdown/disappointment. It slightly reduces/restrains the scope of federal government, but only insomuch as to solidify one group's privileges over another's. For instance, under the DOMA, the federal government doesn't force other states to recognize a state's gay marriages, but it still [presumably] forces other states to recognize all the other non-gay marriages. Similarly, the tax/extortion system still privileges married straight couples over both singles and gay couples. Taxation is bad enough on its own, but a taxation system that engages in social engineering and behavioral "nudging" is much worse. Whereas a "genuine" small government bill would actually address these issues, the DOMA just panders to social conservatives.

In other words, my opinion is that the bill/Act sucks, but if it's the worst Ron Paul has ever done, I can't complain THAT much. :p

EDIT: I confused the DOMA with another bill and mistakenly said that RP had a hand in drafting it. Thankfully, I was wrong.

[hard@work]

In an extensive interview with Stossel, Dr. Paul said gays should be allowed to marry. So maybe somebody is just confused about what the bill does or doesn't do or undoes. I know I am.

The answer, as usual, is to keep government out of marriage entirely at every level.

That's what I'm saying, it's very confusing. And understanding his personal convictions makes this more of a concern for me. I'm just hoping for solid clarification that can satisfy large portions of both sides on the argument over this societal problem.

[TonySutton]

If what the judge says is true maybe this will finally get the other Republicans on board with getting govt out of marriage.

[Zap!]

Good. Look at the guy on the right? Although fictional, it is not the same as a normal human being.

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/TEsVcKvpLe4l.jpg

[Jinks]

I see the gay mafia is out en force today trying to tear down Ron Paul.

there's nothing to tear down, if Ron Paul and his message is so fragile that a gay mafia can destroy, it will be sooner or later by somebody else. You can't win everybody, so you have to know who you can lose.

[devil21]

I still have yet to see any source directly from RP on this issue, not other news outlets claiming he said it. Can ANYONE provide a link to an official press release or item on one of RP's official websites?

[Fredom101]

Marriage is bullshit anyway. How many marriages do you know that actually are working well? Over half end in divorce and most of the rest are dysfunctional in some way. I don't know why everyone is so wild about marriage in the first place, I don't see how it is a good thing.

[Acala]

No he didn't. He just said that anybody should be allowed to enter into a contract, which is different from marriage.

Yes, he did. The question was "do you think gays should be allowed to marry?" and his answer was "Oh, I think so." I'm going to look for it now. (Hope I remembered this correctly after shooting off my mouth!)


edit: Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

Start at 2:00

[Orgoonian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS5_1K9LW8E

[Acala]

Marriage is bullshit anyway. How many marriages do you know that actually are working well? Over half end in divorce and most of the rest are dysfunctional in some way. I don't know why everyone is so wild about marriage in the first place, I don't see how it is a good thing.

This is why gays should be FORCED to get married.:D

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I see the gay mafia is out en force today trying to tear down Ron Paul.

Thankfully their influence in a GOP primary is blessedly small.

[sailingaway]

I put all my thoughts on this in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?281241-Ron-Paul-Condems-Obama%92s-Decision-to-Abandon-DOMA

and I don't want to go through them again.

[Jinks]

Marriage is bullshit anyway. How many marriages do you know that actually are working well? Over half end in divorce and most of the rest are dysfunctional in some way. I don't know why everyone is so wild about marriage in the first place, I don't see how it is a good thing.

its very easy to say "I wasnt using that freedom anyway" when you have it.

[Brett85]

Yes, he did. The question was "do you think gays should be allowed to marry?" and his answer was "Oh, I think so." I'm going to look for it now. (Hope I remembered this correctly after shooting off my mouth!)


edit: Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

Start at 2:00

He never called for government recognition of gay marriage, which is what some people here support. He simply said that the government should get out of marriage all together.

[erowe1]

would he be in favor of eliminating all marriage privileges currently granted to married couples?

Of course. Is there any doubt about that?

[Jinks]

Of course. Is there any doubt about that?

yes, there's a LOT of doubt in my mind that anybody favors it if you didn't explicitly state it.

I doubt if Paul did, he'd get much conservative support.

[Fredom101]

its very easy to say "I wasnt using that freedom anyway" when you have it.

You're missing my point. I want everyone to have the FREEDOM to get married, if they'd like to. But why is everyone so excited about marriage in the first place? I don't see how it's a good thing. Much like, I'm not a drug user, but I think everyone should be able to use whatever drugs they'd like.

[low preference guy]

I see the gay mafia is out en force today trying to tear down Ron Paul.

hahaha. "the gay mafia"? what the heck is that?

[BuddyRey]

hahaha. "the gay mafia"? what the heck is that?

I guess it's another term for "Gay Agenda" - the kind of term very paranoid people use to try and conjure up images of the most powerful people in Hollywood meeting in a smoky room somewhere, scheming about how they're going to make sodomy mandatory in all American preschools and abolish tartan plaid.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

In the strictest and most cynical sense, this is technically true, but it only tells part of the story: In this case, it's kind of a "selective" small government position that technically reduces the scope of government, but it doesn't go all the way, and the actual name of the act provides the motive for "why." I don't really begrudge Ron Paul for merely voting in favor, but I've always considered it a minor letdown/disappointment. It slightly reduces/restrains the scope of federal government, but only insomuch as to solidify one group's privileges over another's. For instance, under the DOMA, the federal government doesn't force other states to recognize a state's gay marriages, but it still [presumably] forces other states to recognize all the other non-gay marriages. Similarly, the tax/extortion system still privileges married straight couples over both singles and gay couples. Taxation is bad enough on its own, but a taxation system that engages in social engineering and behavioral "nudging" is much worse. Whereas a "genuine" small government bill would actually address these issues, the DOMA just panders to social conservatives.

In other words, my opinion is that the bill/Act sucks, but if it's the worst Ron Paul has ever done, I can't complain THAT much. :p

EDIT: I confused the DOMA with another bill and mistakenly said that RP had a hand in drafting it. Thankfully, I was wrong.

^ looks like Mini-Me has it covered. It is a let down to discover RP is human and logically fallable but an expected let down. Who is perfect?

[ChaosControl]

Marriage is bullshit anyway. How many marriages do you know that actually are working well? Over half end in divorce and most of the rest are dysfunctional in some way. I don't know why everyone is so wild about marriage in the first place, I don't see how it is a good thing.

This view is growing, even if it is a pretty bad mindset. The problem is people rush into marriage based on lust and infatuation instead of love. They then wonder what went wrong and divorce. Just because some people are careless doesn't make the concept of marriage meaningless. It is the best way to begin a family. I am not talking about legal marriage, just the concept of pledging yourself to someone else for eternity.

[Brett85]

I guess it's another term for "Gay Agenda" - the kind of term very paranoid people use to try and conjure up images of the most powerful people in Hollywood meeting in a smoky room somewhere, scheming about how they're going to make sodomy mandatory in all American preschools and abolish tartan plaid.

Well they're already trying to brainwash our kids in school to accept homexuality, they're attempting to pass "hate crimes" legislation making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, and Congress already passed a law that would force employers to hire gays. That sounds like "an agenda" to me.

[Deborah K]

Marriage is bullshit anyway. How many marriages do you know that actually are working well? Over half end in divorce and most of the rest are dysfunctional in some way. I don't know why everyone is so wild about marriage in the first place, I don't see how it is a good thing.

Marriage is a committment between two people, and that committment is especially helpful when the couple wants children. I don't believe for a minute that any couple needs state sanction (a marriage license) for the marriage to be recognized. The government getting involved in this boils down to taxation, nothing more. It's silly to make this a "social" issue. This is where I think Gays are off base.

[rich34]

No he didn't. He just said that anybody should be allowed to enter into a contract, which is different from marriage.

This is how I feel. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

[Icymudpuppy]

All it says is that the federal government won't give out tax benefits to gay couples, and one state won't be forced to recognize gay marriages in another state. Ron is taking the small government position.

Then the federal government shouldn't give any benefit to straight couples either.

[Deborah K]

Then the federal government shouldn't give any benefit to straight couples either.

No, it shouldn't. And it shouldn't be taxing wages either.

[Jinks]

This is how I feel. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

which definition are you looking at?

History? Law? Dictionary? Colloquial usage?

[Jinks]

Then the federal government shouldn't give any benefit to straight couples either.

I haven't heard Ron Paul say "I am for the abolition of the institute of marriage in all respects relating to the government, and therefore I am for abolition of all privileges and benefits, financial or otherwise, of currently existing married couples" and I can't see, unless he states such, that he seriously means he's against "government being involved in marriage".

[low preference guy]

I haven't heard Ron Paul say "I am for the abolition of the institute of marriage in all respects relating to the government, and therefore I am for abolition of all privileges and benefits, financial or otherwise, of currently existing married couples" and I can't see, unless he states such, that he seriously means he's against "government being involved in marriage".

You obviously haven't watched Ron Paul videos. Youtube is your friend.

[Jinks]

You obviously haven't watched Ron Paul videos. Youtube is your friend.

there's a million ron paul videos, please find me the specific one which he says so. thanks.

[low preference guy]

there's a million ron paul videos, please find me the specific one which he says so. thanks.

lol!

you should hire a secretary, not look for one at RonPaulForums.

[Orgoonian]

there's a million ron paul videos, please find me the specific one which he says so. thanks.

post 24

[jmdrake]

In an extensive interview with Stossel, Dr. Paul said gays should be allowed to marry. So maybe somebody is just confused about what the bill does or doesn't do or undoes. I know I am.

The answer, as usual, is to keep government out of marriage entirely at every level.

Gays are allowed to marry. There is no state in the union where gays will be put in prison for getting married. It's polygamists who are discriminated against.

[zade]

I'm with the people who said government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. But IF the federal government is going to recognize and therefore "legitimize" heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage should also be recognized

[Ricky201]

Gays are allowed to marry. There is no state in the union where gays will be put in prison for getting married. It's polygamists who are discriminated against.

Correcto-mundo.

The uphill battle is not about what the legal definition of marriage is, but how the hell would you convince straight couples that they are not entitled to government "privileges"? That's my only problem with the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages is that now you will have more people having their hand out and screaming "what about me!?".

I do like the idea of what some of the libertarian republicans in New Hampshire are proposing which is something called "Domestic Unions". From my understand this would end ALL state sanctioned marriages.

[Matt Collins]

Start this video at 2 minutes into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M#t=2m0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84