PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Ron Paul on Loving V. Virginia (1967)?




Assassinrentao
05-21-2012, 09:59 AM
Since Ron Paul believes that the federal government should have no involvement in marriage, how would the people, of a state , protect themselves from their state passing anti-miscegenation laws?

mczerone
05-21-2012, 10:11 AM
Since Ron Paul believes that the federal government should have no involvement in marriage, how would the people, of a state , protect themselves from their state passing anti-miscegenation laws?

1 - by leaving the state
2 - by reforming the state
3 - by letting the state see that other states are leaving them in the dust because of their idiotic anti-human rules.

Since you presumably believe that the federal govt SHOULD have a role - how do you propose protecting us from them when they inevitably do something tyrannical or just stupid? Really, you're just left with the same three options, but they are much less effective when you're going up against DC instead of your state capital.

Assassinrentao
05-21-2012, 10:16 AM
1 - by leaving the state
2 - by reforming the state
3 - by letting the state see that other states are leaving them in the dust because of their idiotic anti-human rules.

Since you presumably believe that the federal govt SHOULD have a role - how do you propose protecting us from them when they inevitably do something tyrannical or just stupid? Really, you're just left with the same three options, but they are much less effective when you're going up against DC instead of your state capital.

So, your answer is it's okay for the state to violate civil rights because they have the right to? Your answers aren't very specific on HOW reform would work, and just saying "STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS!" doesn't mean anything when the state is suppose to uphold civil liberties granted by the Constitution.

How does "forcing gay marriage" prove to be tyrannical? That sound so asinine, I'd say if they were forcing us to have gay sex with each other, but the federal government just wants gays to get married because the state has failed to grant those "reforms" you're talking about.

It's just common sense.

mczerone
05-21-2012, 10:44 AM
So, your answer is it's okay for the state to violate civil rights because they have the right to? Your answers aren't very specific on HOW reform would work, and just saying "STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS!" doesn't mean anything when the state is suppose to uphold civil liberties granted by the Constitution.

How does "forcing gay marriage" prove to be tyrannical? That sound so asinine, I'd say if they were forcing us to have gay sex with each other, but the federal government just wants gays to get married because the state has failed to grant those "reforms" you're talking about.

It's just common sense.

I'm NOT spouting "State's Rights!" In fact I'd argue that States have no rights beyond the rights of the people within the territory.

Civil liberties are NOT "Granted" by the constitution. They are enshrined in the constitution as being inviolable by the states and federal govt. Rights pre-date and are entirely separable from govt.

And I wasn't saying that "forcing gay marriage" was tyrannical. In fact, I agree that IF the govt is in the marriage business (which it shouldn't be), then ALL "marriage contracts" should be recognized equally, regardless of the identity of the freely contracting individuals. But there are a couple of caveats: there are bigoted people in the world that would view this as "tyranny" because they would have to recognize that Jamie has two Daddies. They would harbor further hatred and try to backlash against the new institutional setting. I don't agree with their viewpoint, but it's identically analogous to the concept of "blowback". Try to force people to do things, and they'll be more likely to act violently against you.

The second tangential point is: how do we KNOW what the "right" policy is? Do we force a single solution onto an entire nation of people, insulated from all market forces and feedback? Wouldn't 50 competing jurisdictions provide a much better "market test" of different policies? Sure there would be wrong turns, but they would be found out and corrected much quicker than wrong turns made by the federal govt. And we're not just talking about gay marriage here - we're talking about every single policy decision made by govts. My point was that when something goes wrong, it's EASIER to fix the states than it is to fix the feds. Not that the states have the "right" to do wrong, but that both brands of govt are going to do wrong. But even BEYOND states holding the regulatory power, I advocate each of us holding this power as individuals, freely contracting with self-governing constitutional agencies regardless of geographical happenstance.

Lastly, what if the federal govt said "Fine, gay marriage is cool?" Why would you give them the power to tell you who you can marry? Wouldn't they then want to control further the types of marriages it allows? Would they allow or ban multi-party marriages (3 or more consenting adults)? Would they allow or ban international marriages? What if you wanted to marry someone from Iran? would you have to ask the federal govt permission first?

It does initially appear that using the fed govt to control the states' use of unjust power is a "good" tactic. But all you are doing is giving the gun to a larger crime syndicate. Maybe sometimes you do have to play one gang against the other, but you're still using the power of the gangs to enact the change you wish to see, passing the buck to another tier of the socialist system. You be the change you wish to see in the world. Do you want to be seen as a petty dictator running around with a gun telling people what to do, or do you want to lead by example and make change through persuasion?

ETA: "common sense" is just shorthand for saying you haven't really analyzed the conclusion you've made. Sometimes the thing that is "common" is wrong.

Assassinrentao
05-21-2012, 12:40 PM
I'm NOT spouting "State's Rights!" In fact I'd argue that States have no rights beyond the rights of the people within the territory.

They are enshrined in the constitution as being inviolable by the states and federal govt. Rights pre-date and are entirely separable from govt.

And I wasn't saying that "forcing gay marriage" was tyrannical. In fact, I agree that IF the govt is in the marriage business (which it shouldn't be), then ALL "marriage contracts" should be recognized equally, regardless of the identity of the freely contracting individuals. But there are a couple of caveats: there are bigoted people in the world that would view this as "tyranny" because they would have to recognize that Jamie has two Daddies. They would harbor further hatred and try to backlash against the new institutional setting. I don't agree with their viewpoint, but it's identically analogous to the concept of "blowback". Try to force people to do things, and they'll be more likely to act violently against you.

The second tangential point is: how do we KNOW what the "right" policy is? Do we force a single solution onto an entire nation of people, insulated from all market forces and feedback? Wouldn't 50 competing jurisdictions provide a much better "market test" of different policies? Sure there would be wrong turns, but they would be found out and corrected much quicker than wrong turns made by the federal govt. And we're not just talking about gay marriage here - we're talking about every single policy decision made by govts. My point was that when something goes wrong, it's EASIER to fix the states than it is to fix the feds. Not that the states have the "right" to do wrong, but that both brands of govt are going to do wrong. But even BEYOND states holding the regulatory power, I advocate each of us holding this power as individuals, freely contracting with self-governing constitutional agencies regardless of geographical happenstance.

Lastly, what if the federal govt said "Fine, gay marriage is cool?" Why would you give them the power to tell you who you can marry? Wouldn't they then want to control further the types of marriages it allows? Would they allow or ban multi-party marriages (3 or more consenting adults)? Would they allow or ban international marriages? What if you wanted to marry someone from Iran? would you have to ask the federal govt permission first?

It does initially appear that using the fed govt to control the states' use of unjust power is a "good" tactic. But all you are doing is giving the gun to a larger crime syndicate. Maybe sometimes you do have to play one gang against the other, but you're still using the power of the gangs to enact the change you wish to see, passing the buck to another tier of the socialist system. You be the change you wish to see in the world. Do you want to be seen as a petty dictator running around with a gun telling people what to do, or do you want to lead by example and make change through persuasion?


ETA: "common sense" is just shorthand for saying you haven't really analyzed the conclusion you've made. Sometimes the thing that is "common" is wrong.

This isn't a philosophical argument, these injustices are happening right now ,as we speak, and pondering about what's right, and what's wrong is utter non-sense when you know you can't realistically change the entire system in a day. However, granting people gay marriage is moving forward in the right direction because the federal government is giving more people the liberty to marry gay couples. If any of the following problems you're exaggerating now should come up, society will deal with it on a state level , federal level or both - as we always have.


The entire political system we live in today is a constant struggle between the recognition of states rights and federal rights. By not choosing either side, you're not doing society any good, you're just wasting our time. Instead of offering a solution, you've pushed that responsibility to states, and they've failed - it's time for a change.

Also, to even say that our Constitution doesn't grant us civil liberties, and then the very next sentence say they "enshrine " our rights is just a twist on word-play. In fact, you are saying our Constitution does grant us civil liberties because it's not like the federal government and state governments follow the law always out of the kindness of their hearts - there has to be enforceable documentation to remind the federal and state governments what our liberties are...

Then, you talk about gay marriage being a problem that should be solved by the market place, but marriage still faces inequalities with decades of "Free-market Enterprise" so therefore the federal government must put it's foot down, and stop letting the states violating civil rights.

It is common sense, because you're taking a simple issue, and making such a big idea out of it because you believe the federal government will use it as a "tyrannical" precedent to control social policy, and that's not necessarily true. In fact, gay rights became an issue through civil disobedience , and until it became a national issue. By doing so, we're showing we the people have the ability to influence the federal government to fix problems our society can't fix through state legislation.

Tyranny goes both ways, and it's the state governments that are tyrannical when they violate marriage equality by not letting gays to marry.

Paul Fan
05-21-2012, 01:06 PM
Government is tyrannical. The federal government is more tyrannical than state governments, because it is harder for one person to influence. Your attitude seems to be that tyranny is ok if the tyrant is enforcing your viewpoint. You are wrong.

DerailingDaTrain
05-21-2012, 01:10 PM
I'm not going to argue but the OP is clearly confused.

TonySutton
05-21-2012, 01:16 PM
I think most people here believe government has no business regulating marriages whether it be federal, state or local government.

roho76
05-21-2012, 01:34 PM
Ron Paul doesn't believe in only the Federal Government not being involved in marriage but government period (state, county, municipal). Also, getting married is NOT a "civil right". Just like food or health care is NOT a right.

Besides the reason government is involved in marriage in the first place was for racial segregation (to keep white women from having black babies). Why would anyone want to participate in a know racist government monopoly?

puppetmaster
05-21-2012, 01:44 PM
I think most people here believe government has no business regulating marriages whether it be federal, state or local government.

that is it!

FreedomFighter1776
05-21-2012, 02:13 PM
Article 4 Section 1 of the federal constitution is the answer.

If two individuals get married or create a civil union in one state, the rest of the states are required to give it full faith and credit. Don't look to DOMA as an umbrella under which the bigotry can hide. DOMA attempts to alter the requirement to adhere to the Constitution. An act of Congress cannot alter the words in the Constitution, only an amendment is able to do that.

The whole issue comes down to a single point. Do individuals have the right to contract with one another, for whatever purpose that they choose so long as the purpose is not illegal? If the answer is "no" than by the same thought process the government may choose to not recognize any contract between individuals for spurious reasons. If the answer to my question is "yes" than the government may not pick and choose which contracts they hold as valid.

This does not come down to "gay" rights, since no group of individuals has any more or less rights than any other. This is pure contract rights under the direction of the individual's control of their property rights.

If DOMA can let states ignore the marriage contract of same sex couples, then it stands to reason that they would also have the authority to ignore the marriage contract of opposite sex couples. How loud do you think people would scream if a state decided to do that? All the religious people out there would be apoplectic and rant about government intrusion.

jmdrake
05-21-2012, 04:43 PM
I think most people here believe government has no business regulating marriages whether it be federal, state or local government.

+rep! Also the OP is ignoring the difference between Loving v Virginia and the current gay marriage debate. The couple in the Loving case was arrested! When's the last time a gay couple got arrested for getting married? Ron Paul's goal is to shrink the the federal government to it's constitutionally mandated size and to individualize rights. Individualized Social Security = retirement savings accounts that you can leave to anybody, not just a "spouse". Individualized healthcare = health insurance decoupled from employment that can be bought in the free market. And of course if/when the income tax goes away any marriage benefit/penalty goes away.

jmdrake
05-21-2012, 04:46 PM
So if California decides to give drivers licenses to 12 year olds all other states must agree? And why are law licenses and medical licenses not transferable to other states? The more I think about it, the more certain I am that most people don't understand Article 4 Section 1. DOMA isn't even required not to recognize gay marriage.

There is a difference between a contract, which is between two or more individuals, and a license, which is between one or more individuals and the state. Individuals can enter into contracts which grant most of the trappings of marriage in all 50 states including those states which neither allow gay marriage nor civil unions. These contracts include wills and trusts, durable powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for healthcare etc.


Article 4 Section 1 of the federal constitution is the answer.

If two individuals get married or create a civil union in one state, the rest of the states are required to give it full faith and credit. Don't look to DOMA as an umbrella under which the bigotry can hide. DOMA attempts to alter the requirement to adhere to the Constitution. An act of Congress cannot alter the words in the Constitution, only an amendment is able to do that.

The whole issue comes down to a single point. Do individuals have the right to contract with one another, for whatever purpose that they choose so long as the purpose is not illegal? If the answer is "no" than by the same thought process the government may choose to not recognize any contract between individuals for spurious reasons. If the answer to my question is "yes" than the government may not pick and choose which contracts they hold as valid.

This does not come down to "gay" rights, since no group of individuals has any more or less rights than any other. This is pure contract rights under the direction of the individual's control of their property rights.

If DOMA can let states ignore the marriage contract of same sex couples, then it stands to reason that they would also have the authority to ignore the marriage contract of opposite sex couples. How loud do you think people would scream if a state decided to do that? All the religious people out there would be apoplectic and rant about government intrusion.

mczerone
05-21-2012, 05:45 PM
So if California decides to give drivers licenses to 12 year olds all other states must agree? And why are law licenses and medical licenses not transferable to other states? The more I think about it, the more certain I am that most people don't understand Article 4 Section 1. DOMA isn't even required not to recognize gay marriage.

There is a difference between a contract, which is between two or more individuals, and a license, which is between one or more individuals and the state. Individuals can enter into contracts which grant most of the trappings of marriage in all 50 states including those states which neither allow gay marriage nor civil unions. These contracts include wills and trusts, durable powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for healthcare etc.

Yes. 12 year olds. Or robots.

But you're right about FFC clause - the current status of Con Law has it riddled with holes for all kinds of "special cases" to the point where the general rule seems like the exception.

DerailingDaTrain
05-21-2012, 05:52 PM
Since Ron Paul believes that the federal government should have no involvement in marriage, how would the people, of a state , protect themselves from their state passing anti-miscegenation laws?

They could get involved in the political process and make sure that doesn't happen. Is that the answer you're looking for? It's kind of staring you in the face.

mczerone
05-21-2012, 06:32 PM
They could get involved in the political process and make sure that doesn't happen. Is that the answer you're looking for? It's kind of staring you in the face.

But that doesn't work at the state level, dummy. It's common sense that activism and political will are ONLY effective on the federal level!

(I hope you know that's sarcasm, mocking the anticipated response from this neotroll)

FreedomFighter1776
05-21-2012, 07:16 PM
So if California decides to give drivers licenses to 12 year olds all other states must agree? And why are law licenses and medical licenses not transferable to other states? The more I think about it, the more certain I am that most people don't understand Article 4 Section 1. DOMA isn't even required not to recognize gay marriage.

There is a difference between a contract, which is between two or more individuals, and a license, which is between one or more individuals and the state. Individuals can enter into contracts which grant most of the trappings of marriage in all 50 states including those states which neither allow gay marriage nor civil unions. These contracts include wills and trusts, durable powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for healthcare etc.

JM,

If we are to defend the Constitution we must defend all of it. If we don't like Article 1 Section 4 and we wish to change it, the Constitution must be amended. It is not amended by DOMA. The only power that the state has in legal contracts is to enforce the legal aspects.

Licenses are not contracts. Contracts are only able to be entered into by people who are of the age to legally bind themselves or institutions represented by those who are. 12 year old people and robots do not fit that description. If California passed legislation enabling 12 year old people to enter into a legally binding contract, other states would not currently have the authority to deny the legal bindings, but that is far beyond the point. The marriage contract is not entered into by two people and the state. It is entered into by two people. Would you hold firm on the same view if California passed a bill that they would not honor the other legal documents you mentioned? What if California decided it would not recognize the legal binding of a will from Michigan?

Please be cautious how you view this while thing. Defending the Constitution and the rights of people is a two way street. You will have to defend the rights of people to do things you may not agree with in order to secure your own right to do things that others may not agree with. The legal right to contract is not open to barter.

I find it interesting and sad that we rail against the "progressives" for taking away our economic rights but join forces with those who take away our civil rights. The "progressives" (I call them that because I cannot bring myself to malign the original definition of "liberal") stand on a moral ground to deny us economic freedom because they think it is immoral for some individuals to have "more than they need" and want to spread the wealth around. They do not do this out of a malicious desire to hurt, they do this out a genuine concern about "economic morality". They misunderstand the Constitution.

Some freedom minded conservatives have fallen into the same trap when it comes to trying to outlaw things which they find morally wrong. They also misunderstand the Constitution. What is particularly sad about the conservatives twisting the Constitution in this way is they are disregarding the rule-of-law. Government is not the be-all-end-all. Government has no authority to do anything that you or I do not have the authority to do. They are falling into the exact same trap as the "progressives".

jmdrake
05-30-2012, 05:49 AM
You've made my point for me. A marriage license is not a contract and it is not between two people! Gay people can enter into actual contract s(wills, powers of attorney etc) without having a marriage license.

Sorry I took so long to respond, but I had actually forgotten about this thread. And as for 12 year olds not being of the "legal age", please tell me where the "legal age" is defined in the constitution? The minimum age for voting is defined, but states are free to lower that age. States are also free to have higher ages for other things. In most states the drinking age is 21. There's nothing to prevent a state from saying 12 year olds can enter into legal binding contracts.

Lastly, there is no need to be "cautious" when honestly discussing the constitution. We have to talk about what it says and not what we wish it would say because we want to extent some "right" to some new pet "group".


JM,

If we are to defend the Constitution we must defend all of it. If we don't like Article 1 Section 4 and we wish to change it, the Constitution must be amended. It is not amended by DOMA. The only power that the state has in legal contracts is to enforce the legal aspects.

Licenses are not contracts. Contracts are only able to be entered into by people who are of the age to legally bind themselves or institutions represented by those who are. 12 year old people and robots do not fit that description. If California passed legislation enabling 12 year old people to enter into a legally binding contract, other states would not currently have the authority to deny the legal bindings, but that is far beyond the point. The marriage contract is not entered into by two people and the state. It is entered into by two people. Would you hold firm on the same view if California passed a bill that they would not honor the other legal documents you mentioned? What if California decided it would not recognize the legal binding of a will from Michigan?

Please be cautious how you view this while thing. Defending the Constitution and the rights of people is a two way street. You will have to defend the rights of people to do things you may not agree with in order to secure your own right to do things that others may not agree with. The legal right to contract is not open to barter.

I find it interesting and sad that we rail against the "progressives" for taking away our economic rights but join forces with those who take away our civil rights. The "progressives" (I call them that because I cannot bring myself to malign the original definition of "liberal") stand on a moral ground to deny us economic freedom because they think it is immoral for some individuals to have "more than they need" and want to spread the wealth around. They do not do this out of a malicious desire to hurt, they do this out a genuine concern about "economic morality". They misunderstand the Constitution.

Some freedom minded conservatives have fallen into the same trap when it comes to trying to outlaw things which they find morally wrong. They also misunderstand the Constitution. What is particularly sad about the conservatives twisting the Constitution in this way is they are disregarding the rule-of-law. Government is not the be-all-end-all. Government has no authority to do anything that you or I do not have the authority to do. They are falling into the exact same trap as the "progressives".

jmdrake
05-30-2012, 05:52 AM
Yes. 12 year olds. Or robots.

But you're right about FFC clause - the current status of Con Law has it riddled with holes for all kinds of "special cases" to the point where the general rule seems like the exception.

Ummmm.....I'm not talking about the "current status of Con Law". I'm talking about the original intent of the constitution. As I think about it, I don't believe the FFC clause was ever meant to extend to licensing. And a marriage license is not a contract. Yes there are lots of implied contracts that go along with marriage and that's what's confusing everyone including myself. But those contracts can be entered into without a license.

Weston White
06-01-2012, 07:10 AM
Here are a few additional aspects for consideration:

The principle in law of the age of majority, contracts are not valid to those who have yet to reach the age of majority, e.g., 18-years or older.

A marriage license is not a contract any more than an attorney’s license, driver’s license, practitioner’s license, etc.; it is merely evidence of lawful compliance and qualification. In most respects licenses are merely hidden taxes, while ensuring that uniformity is maintained in professional standards and culpability.

An Arizonian that is intent on residing in California, for example, will have to apply for a California driver’s license and have their vehicles reregistered and equipped to meet their smog and whatever other vehicle requirements, they cannot point to the U.S. Constitution for protections that their vehicles have already been registered and smogged in another Union state, with themselves being in possession of a valid out of state driver’s license.

Corporations, etc., are considered foreign entities in all states except where incorporated; a business does not get to go into another state and setup shop without first meeting that state’s own structured business requirements. Even still, structured businesses have to comply with local county or city requirements within the states they are operating in.

Certain states offer guaranteed recycling fees for glass or plastic, one cannot go into a state that does not and expect that fee to be honored.

Certain types of insurance (life, auto, accidental, travel, etc.) or health care coverage, benefits, etc., are not covered or are covered differently than in other states.

Could not “same sex marriages” otherwise be treated similarly to common law marriages, at the discretion of individual states (e.g., in California common law marriages are not recognized, save for those that can provide evidence that they had met the requirements of being common law partners within a common law marriage state)?

The real issue that should be present on the table is that marriage is a private contract of oneness and intimacy, a togetherness of unrelated families, and nothing more; be it between the parties themselves, or also include their religious commitments. Marriage should neither carry the weight of, nor be left tainted by politic-gaming.

Instead of arguing for governments to get further involved in the sanctimony of marriage, shouldn’t the argument be for hospitals to change their visitor’s policies, for the insurance and health care industries to change their coverage and beneficiary policies, including as well both public (at every governmental level) and private employers, etc., etc., etc.?


Otherwise, where do you draw the line, because before you realize it, we will have “Americanized” Muslims -and even Hindus- arguing for polygyny and then even polyandry “rights” within America? And then America’s robber-baron elitists will be clamoring (once more) for legalized marriage and inbreeding so as to ensure the future security of their hundreds of billions in inherited wealth. Finally, then cometh the last of the straws, Sodom and Gomorrah arrive to meet ancient Greece: publicly open bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty, and eventually even virtual-reality and robot marriages.



“And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.

I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” - Jeremiah 23:13-14

slamhead
06-01-2012, 08:28 AM
So, your answer is it's okay for the state to violate civil rights because they have the right to? Your answers aren't very specific on HOW reform would work, and just saying "STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS!" doesn't mean anything when the state is suppose to uphold civil liberties granted by the Constitution.

How does "forcing gay marriage" prove to be tyrannical? That sound so asinine, I'd say if they were forcing us to have gay sex with each other, but the federal government just wants gays to get married because the state has failed to grant those "reforms" you're talking about.

It's just common sense.

Like any law that is passed by a state the people have regress through the courts. Any law can be brought to court as unconstitutional. It is happening now in Arizona regarding their immigration enforcement law. It happened in California recently with a law that was overwhelmingly passed by the people to deny benefits to illegal immigrants. It went to the USSC and was ruled unconstitutional.

jmdrake
06-01-2012, 08:36 AM
All good points. I will add this. There is no evidence of hospitals with policies that bar gays from visiting their sick loved ones. People say that all the time, but without proof. If a couple as a durable power of attorney for healthcare a hospital cannot bar visitation. That's the law in all 50 states to my knowledge. The "We can't visit our sick loved ones" argument is a red herring. As for insurance, get rid of the federal tax law that binds health insurance to employment and that problem goes away. You don't have to be married to have someone on your car insurance do you?


Here are a few additional aspects for consideration:

The principle in law of the age of majority, contracts are not valid to those who have yet to reach the age of majority, e.g., 18-years or older.

A marriage license is not a contract any more than an attorney’s license, driver’s license, practitioner’s license, etc.; it is merely evidence of lawful compliance and qualification. In most respects licenses are merely hidden taxes, while ensuring that uniformity is maintained in professional standards and culpability.

An Arizonian that is intent on residing in California, for example, will have to apply for a California driver’s license and have their vehicles reregistered and equipped to meet their smog and whatever other vehicle requirements, they cannot point to the U.S. Constitution for protections that their vehicles have already been registered and smogged in another Union state, with themselves being in possession of a valid out of state driver’s license.

Corporations, etc., are considered foreign entities in all states except where incorporated; a business does not get to go into another state and setup shop without first meeting that state’s own structured business requirements. Even still, structured businesses have to comply with local county or city requirements within the states they are operating in.

Certain states offer guaranteed recycling fees for glass or plastic, one cannot go into a state that does not and expect that fee to be honored.

Certain types of insurance (life, auto, accidental, travel, etc.) or health care coverage, benefits, etc., are not covered or are covered differently than in other states.

Could not “same sex marriages” otherwise be treated similarly to common law marriages, at the discretion of individual states (e.g., in California common law marriages are not recognized, save for those that can provide evidence that they had met the requirements of being common law partners within a common law marriage state)?

The real issue that should be present on the table is that marriage is a private contract of oneness and intimacy, a togetherness of unrelated families, and nothing more; be it between the parties themselves, or also include their religious commitments. Marriage should neither carry the weight of, nor be left tainted by politic-gaming.

Instead of arguing for governments to get further involved in the sanctimony of marriage, shouldn’t the argument be for hospitals to change their visitor’s policies, for the insurance and health care industries to change their coverage and beneficiary policies, including as well both public (at every governmental level) and private employers, etc., etc., etc.?


Otherwise, where do you draw the line, because before you realize it, we will have “Americanized” Muslims -and even Hindus- arguing for polygyny and then even polyandry “rights” within America? And then America’s robber-baron elitists will be clamoring (once more) for legalized marriage and inbreeding so as to ensure the future security of their hundreds of billions in inherited wealth. Finally, then cometh the last of the straws, Sodom and Gomorrah arrive to meet ancient Greece: publicly open bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty, and eventually even virtual-reality and robot marriages.

WhistlinDave
06-01-2012, 11:41 AM
Questions for jmdrake, I'm just curious, are you in favor of Ron Paul's position that the government should not issue licenses, regulate marriage, and grant any tax benefits or other privileges based on marriage at all, and any consenting adults should be free to form voluntary associations and call it whatever they want? And, regardless of your answer to that question, are you, for religious or other personal reasons, against the idea of gay people being allowed to get married and call it marriage? (And when I say "allowed" I mean either by having current law allow gay marriages, or by doing what Ron Paul suggests and getting government completely out of the equation, or by any other means for that matter--In other words I'm asking if you oppose gays being able to marry).

r123
09-30-2013, 12:02 PM
Communist Goals of (1963). Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963. Some of the 45 communist goals of 1963: Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books (http://www.ronpaul.com/books/), magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 12:44 PM
Questions for jmdrake, I'm just curious, are you in favor of Ron Paul's position that the government should not issue licenses, regulate marriage, and grant any tax benefits or other privileges based on marriage at all, and any consenting adults should be free to form voluntary associations and call it whatever they want? And, regardless of your answer to that question, are you, for religious or other personal reasons, against the idea of gay people being allowed to get married and call it marriage? (And when I say "allowed" I mean either by having current law allow gay marriages, or by doing what Ron Paul suggests and getting government completely out of the equation, or by any other means for that matter--In other words I'm asking if you oppose gays being able to marry).

I apologize for missing this and not responding for...well over two years. :0 I agree with Ron Paul's position that the government should be completely out of regulating marriage. Tax benefits? There should be no income tax in the first place. I think we could get rid of federal taxes altogether if we really put our minds to it. If someone could get $50K in donations to make potato salad couldn't an online pledge drive raise money for roads? Now as to your question regarding religious reasons, I don't believe in forcing my religion on anyone else. That said, I think it's insane that we live in a country where people can get arrested for doing what Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and others did, while something that was barred in the old and new testament is held up as the "new freedom." For religious reasons I don't eat pork. But I have nothing against people that eat pork. I'll go to a dinner where pork is served even though I won't eat it myself. And I could see myself attending a wedding of a close gay friend. My personal feelings on the matter would be my personal feelings. I hope that answers your question.