Sentient Void
12-12-2011, 05:58 PM
Can someone really flesh out Ron Paul's position on DOMA and what DOMA is and what it does in totality and RP's logic behind *why* he voted for something like DOMA? Admittedly, I don't have all of the facts and have not followed that subject as in depth as others, but a recent debate I had with someone on why they don't fully endorse Ron brought up some interesting points of contention I'd have with Paul, *if* they are in fact true.
I know RP answers 'strangely' when it's brought up to him, so I never feel like he gave a totally straightforward answer. He's a good politician, and can play politics well and appropriately, IMO - so that might be it - but I'm still left very confused.
Here's a part of the debate, BTW - if someone or some people could help me out.
Thanks in advance, everyone! :)
David Boaz
is on Freedom Watch tonight, at the top of the hour -- Gary Johnson later in show.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · about an hour ago ·
Carlos Freedom Alfaro and 15 others like this.
1 share
Jason Vorva Is Gary Johnson still getting air time?
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish Love you stuff, David. Why don't you endorse Ron Paul, though? Gary Johnson essentially has.
You're a great libertarian and have solid influence in the arena of libertarian thought - RP could use all the help he could get right now, and he's the best chance we have.
about an hour ago · Like
James Peron I will tune in to see you and Gary. Good stuff.
about an hour ago · Like
Joe Mertz Perhaps it is Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage...
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish What about his stance on gay marriage? He doesn't want to get in the way of individuals engaging in such a voluntary contract, the same way men and women engage in such a contract. He has said in numerous debates and on public television that he feels the government has no role in such matters.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Amy Welser Gmerek Or could it be abortion?
about an hour ago · Like
Steve Lolyouwish I'm pretty sure RP said he would not be in favor of outlawing that at the Federal level, and he would leave it to the States.
He's gotta keep the 'conservative' vote and somehow pull off sounding like a 'conservative', guys. Comon. He's much more political than people realize.
58 minutes ago · Like
James Peron Ron Paul has said lots of things about marriage equality, not all of it coherent or consistent. He says he wants state control except for DOMA which established a federal definition for marriage. So, he's for state control except when he isn't.
He said that it should be left to the states but then says he opposes the states legalizing gay marriage based on his religious beliefs.
He said it should be returned to the churches, but marriage in America was never controlled by the churches. And, since the Protestant Reformation has not been under church control in most of the west. And, histories of marriage laws show that the Catholic only took control of marriage rather late in it's history. So marriage was not a church institution at all. It is a legal contract and as such it belongs in the realm of law, not religion.
The idea that the state has no role in contracts in nonsense. You can't say that marriage is a contract and then also claim that the law should have nothing to do with contracts. Would you support having labor contracts turned over to trade unions? Contracts are always a matter of law and adjudication of contracts is a legal issue, not a religious one.
45 minutes ago · Like
Steve Lolyouwish I think you're misunderstanding his logic on DOMA, which is that churches have the right to marry who they want, and can (IMO rightly) refuse people, gay or straight. As in, gays can't claim discrimination if churches don't want to marry them because they are gay. To adopt any other position is anti-liberty and pro-government intervention in regards to otherwise voluntary interaction. As libertarians we support the freedom to associate or not to associate. So if I have it right, then his logic there is legitimate in regards to libertarian philosophy.
Otherwise, he says the States should have the decision. I think he recognizes that the way things are going, more and more states are going to allow and recognize gay marriage until virtually all of them do. This way, he can still advocate for gay marriage by saying 'leave it to the states' - while still sounding like a conservative at the same time while saying the federal government has no role in it.
As for 'returning it to the churches' - well, yes, churches, like any private entity - *should* have the right to choose who they wish to marry or not marry, as per their definition. But I've not heard anything where he would support legislation outlawing gay marriage. He has said time and time again that it is not the role of government to dictate what such contracts can and cannot take place. Their only role, and he has said this, is to enforce contracts. It's not about 'government not being involved' - as it is, government not being able to get in the way of them. So your argument is essentially a strawman when you say 'the idea that the state has no role in contracts is nonsense' - this was never my, nor RP's argument.
37 minutes ago · Like
James Peron DOMA doesn't mention churches at all. Have you read it? Any church today can discriminate in regards to who they marry. Nothing has changed on that front for centuries.
What it said was that for all federal purposes only men and women can be considered married. The only effect DOMA has had legally was to strip away a long honored position that the states define marriage and the federal govt. will respect that definition when it comes to federal law. Now, the federal definition takes priority over state definitions. It reverses the federalist assumption on marriage law.
Ron is a conservative and has always had problems with issues about gay rights. He did vote to reinstate sodomy as a crime in DC in 1981, after all. I argued with him about it at the time.
He says he opposes states passing gay marriage laws. And DOMA made it illegal for the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages.
Ron Paul supports a law that established a federal definition of marriage. You simply can't escape that. And it did nothing to protect churches any more than they already are protected—which is why Catholic churches don't have to perform weddings for Protestants, or Baptists aren't required to perform marriages for Jews. They are free to discriminate according to their religious doctrine and the First Amendment has been protecting that right for centuries (but Ron says the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states, so who knows if he thinks this should be the case.)
The only thing DOMA did was make sure gay couples have less rights. So they pay higher estate taxes when their partners die, because of DOMA. They, unlike straight Americans, can't sponsor a foreign born spouse for citizenship so they can stay together. They, unlike straight married couples, pay in at the same rate to things like Social Security, but in return are told they get less out of the system. Because of DOMA gay people have to pay taxes on the health benefits their work provides for spouses—straight couples don't pay taxes on that. Gay couples do.
Because of DOMA major businesses claim they are forced to keep two sets of books. They have to calculate health benefits, pensions and taxes one way for legally married straight couples. But for same-sex couples they have to do it a completely different way. This is adding millions to the cost of doing business across the country. But then DOMA is a govt. regulation and they don't come cost free, do they?
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/11/high-cost-of-government-mandated.html
16 minutes ago · Like
Daniel Bartholomew James, the state should *enforce* contracts - it shouldn't help *write* them.
Please understand this distinction.
It's not far-fetched to get the govt out of licensing marriage. Please stop invoking the state to let more people pay them a licensing fee to do something that's an inherent right (voluntary association). Asking the state to let more people pay a marriage tax (license) is not libertarian.
9 minutes ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish @James, I am admittedly not as read up on DOMA as you are, and will have to look into it further. You bring up some interesting points of legitimate contention with Paul, and I'm curious to get his straight answer on it. I don't understand why he would support something, if it's really as simple as you say it is.
Still voting for him, and I think it's a mostly productive vote as opposed to every single one of the contenders on both sides of the aisle, but this would definitely be something I would not agree with him on if this is all really the case.
My support would basically go from 99% agreed on the issues to 95% (considering all the weighted issues at stake).
I know RP answers 'strangely' when it's brought up to him, so I never feel like he gave a totally straightforward answer. He's a good politician, and can play politics well and appropriately, IMO - so that might be it - but I'm still left very confused.
Here's a part of the debate, BTW - if someone or some people could help me out.
Thanks in advance, everyone! :)
David Boaz
is on Freedom Watch tonight, at the top of the hour -- Gary Johnson later in show.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · about an hour ago ·
Carlos Freedom Alfaro and 15 others like this.
1 share
Jason Vorva Is Gary Johnson still getting air time?
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish Love you stuff, David. Why don't you endorse Ron Paul, though? Gary Johnson essentially has.
You're a great libertarian and have solid influence in the arena of libertarian thought - RP could use all the help he could get right now, and he's the best chance we have.
about an hour ago · Like
James Peron I will tune in to see you and Gary. Good stuff.
about an hour ago · Like
Joe Mertz Perhaps it is Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage...
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish What about his stance on gay marriage? He doesn't want to get in the way of individuals engaging in such a voluntary contract, the same way men and women engage in such a contract. He has said in numerous debates and on public television that he feels the government has no role in such matters.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Amy Welser Gmerek Or could it be abortion?
about an hour ago · Like
Steve Lolyouwish I'm pretty sure RP said he would not be in favor of outlawing that at the Federal level, and he would leave it to the States.
He's gotta keep the 'conservative' vote and somehow pull off sounding like a 'conservative', guys. Comon. He's much more political than people realize.
58 minutes ago · Like
James Peron Ron Paul has said lots of things about marriage equality, not all of it coherent or consistent. He says he wants state control except for DOMA which established a federal definition for marriage. So, he's for state control except when he isn't.
He said that it should be left to the states but then says he opposes the states legalizing gay marriage based on his religious beliefs.
He said it should be returned to the churches, but marriage in America was never controlled by the churches. And, since the Protestant Reformation has not been under church control in most of the west. And, histories of marriage laws show that the Catholic only took control of marriage rather late in it's history. So marriage was not a church institution at all. It is a legal contract and as such it belongs in the realm of law, not religion.
The idea that the state has no role in contracts in nonsense. You can't say that marriage is a contract and then also claim that the law should have nothing to do with contracts. Would you support having labor contracts turned over to trade unions? Contracts are always a matter of law and adjudication of contracts is a legal issue, not a religious one.
45 minutes ago · Like
Steve Lolyouwish I think you're misunderstanding his logic on DOMA, which is that churches have the right to marry who they want, and can (IMO rightly) refuse people, gay or straight. As in, gays can't claim discrimination if churches don't want to marry them because they are gay. To adopt any other position is anti-liberty and pro-government intervention in regards to otherwise voluntary interaction. As libertarians we support the freedom to associate or not to associate. So if I have it right, then his logic there is legitimate in regards to libertarian philosophy.
Otherwise, he says the States should have the decision. I think he recognizes that the way things are going, more and more states are going to allow and recognize gay marriage until virtually all of them do. This way, he can still advocate for gay marriage by saying 'leave it to the states' - while still sounding like a conservative at the same time while saying the federal government has no role in it.
As for 'returning it to the churches' - well, yes, churches, like any private entity - *should* have the right to choose who they wish to marry or not marry, as per their definition. But I've not heard anything where he would support legislation outlawing gay marriage. He has said time and time again that it is not the role of government to dictate what such contracts can and cannot take place. Their only role, and he has said this, is to enforce contracts. It's not about 'government not being involved' - as it is, government not being able to get in the way of them. So your argument is essentially a strawman when you say 'the idea that the state has no role in contracts is nonsense' - this was never my, nor RP's argument.
37 minutes ago · Like
James Peron DOMA doesn't mention churches at all. Have you read it? Any church today can discriminate in regards to who they marry. Nothing has changed on that front for centuries.
What it said was that for all federal purposes only men and women can be considered married. The only effect DOMA has had legally was to strip away a long honored position that the states define marriage and the federal govt. will respect that definition when it comes to federal law. Now, the federal definition takes priority over state definitions. It reverses the federalist assumption on marriage law.
Ron is a conservative and has always had problems with issues about gay rights. He did vote to reinstate sodomy as a crime in DC in 1981, after all. I argued with him about it at the time.
He says he opposes states passing gay marriage laws. And DOMA made it illegal for the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages.
Ron Paul supports a law that established a federal definition of marriage. You simply can't escape that. And it did nothing to protect churches any more than they already are protected—which is why Catholic churches don't have to perform weddings for Protestants, or Baptists aren't required to perform marriages for Jews. They are free to discriminate according to their religious doctrine and the First Amendment has been protecting that right for centuries (but Ron says the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states, so who knows if he thinks this should be the case.)
The only thing DOMA did was make sure gay couples have less rights. So they pay higher estate taxes when their partners die, because of DOMA. They, unlike straight Americans, can't sponsor a foreign born spouse for citizenship so they can stay together. They, unlike straight married couples, pay in at the same rate to things like Social Security, but in return are told they get less out of the system. Because of DOMA gay people have to pay taxes on the health benefits their work provides for spouses—straight couples don't pay taxes on that. Gay couples do.
Because of DOMA major businesses claim they are forced to keep two sets of books. They have to calculate health benefits, pensions and taxes one way for legally married straight couples. But for same-sex couples they have to do it a completely different way. This is adding millions to the cost of doing business across the country. But then DOMA is a govt. regulation and they don't come cost free, do they?
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/11/high-cost-of-government-mandated.html
16 minutes ago · Like
Daniel Bartholomew James, the state should *enforce* contracts - it shouldn't help *write* them.
Please understand this distinction.
It's not far-fetched to get the govt out of licensing marriage. Please stop invoking the state to let more people pay them a licensing fee to do something that's an inherent right (voluntary association). Asking the state to let more people pay a marriage tax (license) is not libertarian.
9 minutes ago · Like · 1
Steve Lolyouwish @James, I am admittedly not as read up on DOMA as you are, and will have to look into it further. You bring up some interesting points of legitimate contention with Paul, and I'm curious to get his straight answer on it. I don't understand why he would support something, if it's really as simple as you say it is.
Still voting for him, and I think it's a mostly productive vote as opposed to every single one of the contenders on both sides of the aisle, but this would definitely be something I would not agree with him on if this is all really the case.
My support would basically go from 99% agreed on the issues to 95% (considering all the weighted issues at stake).