PDA

View Full Version : Other: Paul's position on gay marriage - clarification please




Havax
12-20-2011, 12:14 PM
Can someone explain this to me? I like when Ron says the government should just be out of the matter, but I also hear that he supported/supports the Defence of Marriage Act which is direct federal intervention in the matter. I also saw an Iowa pastor cite his support of DOMA as a reason for endorsing him.

So is this position inconsistent? Can someone clarify this for me?

69360
12-20-2011, 12:17 PM
He wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. He feels it should be handled at the state level.

He personally feels that marriage is between one man and one woman. He's also said that marriage should be between people and their church and that any two people can enter into any contract and call it whatever they want. He said the only role the government should have in marriage is enforcing contracts.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:19 PM
Can someone explain this to me? I like when Ron says the government should just be out of the matter, but I also hear that he supported/supports the Defence of Marriage Act which is direct federal intervention in the matter. I also saw an Iowa pastor cite his support of DOMA as a reason for endorsing him.

So is this position inconsistent? Can someone clarify this for me?

DOMA prevents federal intervention in marriage.

runamuck
12-20-2011, 12:21 PM
He wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. He feels it should be handled at the state level.

He personally feels that marriage is between one man and one woman. He's also said that marriage should be between people and their church and that any two people can enter into any contract and call it whatever they want. He said the only role the government should have in marriage is enforcing contracts.

This

Apparition
12-20-2011, 12:22 PM
DOMA if I recall allows for a state to not recognize a gay marriage from another state, which undermines Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constituion... as I see it anyway.

vroomery
12-20-2011, 12:22 PM
I'm honestly not sure, but I think he primarily supported this because of the provision that States do not have to recognize the marriage of another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

His end goal is definitely to remove marriage from the federal government and ideally all government and rely solely on documents similar to those which business partners would sign. The biggest purpose for marriage in the federal government anyway is to define what you pay in taxes, which should become increasingly unimportant under a Paul administration as well. Marriage came from the church so we should send it back there and let the government deal in legal contracts only.

The Gold Standard
12-20-2011, 12:22 PM
The Defense of Marriage Act says that states are not compelled to accept the definition of marriage from other states. That is the reason Paul supports it. It also defines marriage as far as federal bureaucracy as one man and one woman, but he wants to do away with all of that bureaucracy anyway, so it would be irrelevant.

Keith and stuff
12-20-2011, 12:25 PM
DOMA if I recall allows for a state to not recognize a gay marriage from another state, which undermines Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constituion... as I see it anyway.

Government marriage isn't a right. It may be anti-liberty. One theory is that it is a government granted special right for only those people that get a government marriage at the expense of everyone else.

Keith and stuff
12-20-2011, 12:25 PM
DOMA prevents federal intervention in marriage.

That sounds great.

Xenophage
12-20-2011, 12:27 PM
DOMA doesn't prevent same sex marriage from becoming legal in any particular state. It says that no state shall be *required* to allow same sex marriage. It's sort of federalist.

It does define marriage as a legal term according to the fedgov as between a man and a woman.

I believe that last bit is unconstitutional, and I don't understand why RP voted for it. But I have a few other little disagreements with him here and there. I agree with his stated opinion of the issue: that marriage is a social and religious matter, and there ought to be no laws dealing with it apart from a legal recognition of the contract. This would seem to be in direct contradiction to his support for DOMA.

I'll chalk it up to just another little disagreement that I have with RP, but I consider this one fairly minor. Maybe someone else has more insight.

Apparition
12-20-2011, 12:35 PM
Government marriage isn't a right. It may be anti-liberty. One theory is that it is a government granted special right for only those people that get a government marriage at the expense of everyone else.

For marriage to be recognized by the State, it has to be submitted to the Justice of Peace... which is why Full Faith and Credit applies here.
If I'm married to my wife in Texas and I decide to move to California, I do not have to get 're-married' in the State of California.

Has nothing to do with marriage being a right or not, just to how marriage is handled State to State in terms of the FF&C Clause of the Constitution.

Of course, I'm no expert on the matter... this is just how I see it. =)

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:41 PM
For marriage to be recognized by the State, it has to be submitted to the Justice of Peace... which is why Full Faith and Credit applies here.
If I'm married to my wife in Texas and I decide to move to California, I do not have to get 're-married' in the State of California.

Has nothing to do with marriage being a right or not, just to how marriage is handled State to State in terms of the FF&C Clause of the Constitution.

Of course, I'm no expert on the matter... this is just how I see it. =)

Article 4 Section 1 is as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So that full faith and credit is explicitly according to Congress's prescriptions. Congress could say that California does have to recognize Texas marriages, even if California uses a different definition of marriage than Texas does (which would be a bad thing). Or Congress could say that California does not have to do that, which is what they did in DOMA, and it's a good thing.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:44 PM
It does define marriage as a legal term according to the fedgov as between a man and a woman.

I believe that last bit is unconstitutional

The problem is, there were laws already related to marriage. The word "marriage" in those laws must have some definition. It's not like the laws go away if you don't define marriage, or if you allow marriage to include same-sex couples. There's no less unconstitutional activity on the part of the federal government when it does recognize gay marriage than there is when it doesn't, in fact, I'd argue that there would be more.

Also, Ron Paul didn't vote for it. He would have. But he wasn't in Congress at the time.

evadmurd
12-20-2011, 12:51 PM
We always have to remember that every person is allowed personal opinion about any given subject, and that includes presidential candidates. The thing that separates Ron Paul is that while he has his own personal opinions, he is not willing to make those a basis for government intervention. He will follow the constitution and keep his opinion and personal beliefs his own, as he would uphold anyone to do the same. Keeping gay marriage and other social issues on the forefront (by us) simply makes it appear we haven't figured that out yet, and are as simplistic as the rest of the blind electorate that falsely believes that a president can make ANY change to ANY of these issues on their own.

Bonnieblue
12-22-2011, 04:58 PM
Those of us who are orthodox Christians would prefer that there be no gay marriage; however, Dr. Paul, who likely agrees with that position, wants to use true federalism, i.e. to reduce the social friction over the issue; that is, what constitutes marriage is determined by the states and not by the general government. That is a reasonable compromise position; however, Dr. Paul fundamentally believes that government should not be in the business marriage at all. There was a time in the not too distant past when Catholics were married under canon law and Protestants were married at common law. The state was not involved. The the state came into the picture and essentially outlawed marriage. Marriage became illicit. It became in fact a secular indulgence. In order to legally commit an illicit act, one must by a license from the state in order to perform that otherwise illicit act. That is what a state-issued marriage license is: a secular indulgence issued by the state for an otherwise illicit act. Far better would it be in the complicated social arrangements of today, if churches performed weddings without any state license according to their own doctrines, and non-Christians performed weddings according to their own traditions, customs and habits without state sanction. We are not ready to return to the status quo of 1600, however; so Dr. Paul's insistence on removing the general government from marriage an leaving it to the states is a reasonable compromise position.

Shorting
12-26-2011, 11:35 PM
He wants the federal government out of marriage altogether. He feels it should be handled at the state level.


I agree with that part.

Inny Binny
01-01-2012, 09:57 PM
This idea that somehow DOMA protects states from being forced to recognised marriages they don't like is complete nonsense - you don't need a piece of legislation to help with that. The best way to protect states' rights is of course having no legislation at all.

And the provision that defines marriage for federal purposes is clearly immoral. I believe the real reason Paul opposes the repeal of DOMA is because that would extend federal marriage benefits to gay people, thus increasing government spending. Frankly I think that's a silly way to oppose government spending, just like voting for oil tax breaks is a silly way to oppose taxation.