Issue: Personal Liberty: Equality in marriage and armed forces service

[mdh]

How does Ron Paul feel about equality in marriage for non-heterosexual couples?

Also, what's his take on Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding non-heterosexuals in military service?

Haven't been able to find anything official on these. Thanks folks!

[Bryan]

On the marriage question, the proper question to ask oneself is, why is this an issue? Why is it that the government needs to make laws about this? How does it matter to other people who someone else marries? Obviously there are currently some federal ramifications such as tax purposes, but these are artificial creations. The reality is, this is not an issue for government and the Constitution does not authorize involvement. From a legal perspective marriage is just a contract and can be dealt with like any other contract. Ron's position follows in this tract, below is a piece he wrote on the topic:

Gay Marriage Quicksand
The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

Continued: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst030104.htm

[mdh]

I like the gist of what his post there says, but it doesn't seem to address specific policies on the matter. The IRS is, of course, one big way in which the federal government has stepped in on the institution of marriage, and that wasn't addressed at all. Many issues can and should be dealt with at the state level. Some can't. Most of us would probably like to just be done with the IRS altogether, but I don't think any of us are silly enough to think that even if Ron Paul were given a full 8 years as Pres, it'd be doable in that time frame.
Your first question is a bit off the mark - no one's saying the federal government needs to or should make actual legislation or, even worse, pass constitutional amendments regarding this issue. There are however policy decisions, many of which are dictated by the executive branch and not legislation, that have a direct impact on the lives of non-heterosexual couples, and create a virtual marriage class system of exclusion. Of course things like taxation are artificial creations, but... the fact is, quite basically, they done been created, and we're not so easily getting rid of them any time soon.
If, from a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract, then how can any consenting adults be forbidden from entering into such a contract without diresse or any other such mitigating factors which hinder the individual's personal freedoms/choices?

The military issue is a whole other one, too - it's one that falls pretty much wholly on the shoulders of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, since no one lower down in the chain of command would dare issue directives on such matters for political reasons.

Thanks, Matt.

[Bryan]

I like the gist of what his post there says, but it doesn't seem to address specific policies on the matter. The IRS is, of course, one big way in which the federal government has stepped in on the institution of marriage, and that wasn't addressed at all. Many issues can and should be dealt with at the state level. Some can't. Most of us would probably like to just be done with the IRS altogether, but I don't think any of us are silly enough to think that even if Ron Paul were given a full 8 years as Pres, it'd be doable in that time frame.
Ron Paul does fully and totally support the elimination of the IRS and has for a long time. The degree of executive vs. congressional authority to do so is debatable but from a fiscal perspective it is quite possible, all we'd have to do is revert to our level of spending in 2000 as Dr. Paul reported here:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst041006.htm
Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000!

Of course this doesn't deal with the deficit problems but the point is that it's not at all a crazy idea. I'm not sure of his position on any sort of comprise barring not scratching the IRS.


Your first question is a bit off the mark - no one's saying the federal government needs to or should make actual legislation or, even worse, pass constitutional amendments regarding this issue. There are however policy decisions, many of which are dictated by the executive branch and not legislation, that have a direct impact on the lives of non-heterosexual couples, and create a virtual marriage class system of exclusion. Of course things like taxation are artificial creations, but... the fact is, quite basically, they done been created, and we're not so easily getting rid of them any time soon.I agree there are terrible policies and it is a determinate to our society because of it. I haven't researched Dr. Paul's position in-depth on this but I would be quite surprised if he supported the continued existence of any of these artificial creations. I understand the dilemma of "fix the problem" (get ride of the system) vs. "put a band-aide on it" (change the rules). It seems Dr. Paul focuses his message to fix the problem which helps our society keep focus but he has supported changing the rules (like lower taxes) when there aren't the votes in Congress to do otherwise. Maybe someone else can better state his position here.


If, from a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract, then how can any consenting adults be forbidden from entering into such a contract without diresse or any other such mitigating factors which hinder the individual's personal freedoms/choices? In a free society they can not, the government has no business in the dealings of two sovereign parties. Questions like this help us gauge how much freedom we have.

[tnvoter]

the facts:

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

[cujothekitten]

How does Ron Paul feel about equality in marriage for non-heterosexual couples?

He has voted against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He sees it as a states decision and not a federal one
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

The gay adoptions vote was against federal funding for it.


Also, what's his take on Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding non-heterosexuals in military service?

Haven't been able to find anything official on these. Thanks folks!

Yeah I don't think I've heard him say anything about this. I'd like to think he's ok with it but I'm not sure.

[mdh]

The gay adoptions vote was against federal funding for it.

This is one of those issues that the liberals will try to use against us in the GLBT community, we need to make that part clear.


Of course this doesn't deal with the deficit problems but the point is that it's not at all a crazy idea. I'm not sure of his position on any sort of comprise barring not scratching the IRS.

As I said, I'm sure most of us like the idea of ditching the IRS, too. I just don't see it as being possible to get the appropriate facilities in place and figure out how to eliminate the massive-and-growing debt situation in under 8 years time.
The same is really true of cutting funding to socialist programs. The fact is, there are people working in government, for government contractors, etc who would need to be let go. We can't do that over night. We need to slowly ease up on taxation to enable private industry to have more spending capital to invest in creating new jobs for these people as we are getting them out of their government/government contractor positions working on the programs that need to be eliminated. It's a slow process, and one that if rushed would create a whole lot of new poverty while at the same time removing the supports that currently primarily benefit the lazy.

[Bryan]

Here is some more good info from Wikipedia:

The We the People Act (H.R. 4379) is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) on November 17, 2005. The bill would limit or remove the federal courts' jurisdiction in cases involving religious freedom, sexual orientation or practices, or same-sex marriages. It also states that decisions by federal courts on cases relating to these issues are not to be set as precedent in state courts: "Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How does Ron Paul feel about equality in marriage for non-heterosexual couples?

Also, what's his take on Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding non-heterosexuals in military service?

Haven't been able to find anything official on these. Thanks folks!

I'm not sure on your second question, but on your first: Marriage itself should not really be a government-issue, leave marriage to the individuals, they can do what they want. If they want to marry, why not? Again, non-government issue.

He and I may have opinions on the issue, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter: Non-government issue. That's how I see it :rolleyes:

[echoes21]

Thanks for this thread. It has been helpful. As a gay supporter of Ron Paul, I often wonder what his personal views are on this. I guess, in the end, it doesn't matter...and he'd probably answer the same way. He seems to believe in "to each his/her own", which I like.

[White Knight]

Thanks for this thread. It has been helpful. As a gay supporter of Ron Paul, I often wonder what his personal views are on this. I guess, in the end, it doesn't matter...and he'd probably answer the same way. He seems to believe in "to each his/her own", which I like.

This is what is so great about Ron Paul. We are so far apart on issues, as I am a hard-line right-wing paleo-con like Pat Buchanan. Yet we are united in our support of Ron Paul.

BTW, Paul did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act in '96 or '98, the one that Clinton signed. He believe that it should hold in court and that a constitutional amendment is unneccessary (he is totally against activist judges). Although
Ron Paul is certainly not anti-gay or mean-spirited, he does believe marriage is best left for a man and women. Don't let that scare you off though, even liberals like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton say the same thing.

[Gee]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say RP would probably not think the federal government should rule on either of these issues. But... anyone know why he voted for the marriage defense act? That isn't something authorized by the constitution.

I for one would rather have the military decide who they want serving in order to best protect this country - not politicians.