Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"

[Brassmouth]

Does that "everyone" include me?

Yes, I daresay they'd hope you'd accept them. However you certainly have no obligation to do so. In any case, you have no right to stop them from entering into voluntary contracts. End of story.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul357.html
Read the whole article, it's good.

So... were you lying when you said he said that in the debates? Tsk tsk. I don't think your invisible man likes lying very much. Regardless, as expected, Dr. Paul was making no reference to political or economic policy, he was simply remarking upon the current events in the war and wishing his friends a merry xmas. Hardly relevant.

That phrase is lifted word for word from the Bible. I dare you to find any pre-Biblical use of that exact phrase.

You completely missed my point. The notion of people wanting peace on earth and good will towards men did not originate with the bible. And if you think the original authors of the bible used those exact words, you're horribly mistaken. The bible has been translated so many times I can't see how anyone gives it any credibility.

You don't have to be religious to want peace on earth, or promote good will towards men. That was my point. It is not difficult to grasp.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Yes, I daresay they'd hope you'd accept them. However you certainly have no obligation to do so. In any case, you have no right to stop them from entering into voluntary contracts. End of story.

That's an arrangement I'm completely satisfied with.

So... were you lying when you said he said that in the debates? Tsk tsk. I don't think your invisible man likes lying very much. Regardless, as expected, Dr. Paul was making no reference to political or economic policy, he was simply remarking upon the current events in the war and wishing his friends a merry xmas. Hardly relevant.

I'm pretty sure I never mentioned a debate.

You completely missed my point. The notion of people wanting peace on earth and good will towards men did not originate with the bible. And if you think the original authors of the bible used those exact words, you're horribly mistaken. The bible has been translated so many times I can't see how anyone gives it any credibility.

You don't have to be religious to want peace on earth, or promote good will towards men. That was my point. It is not difficult to grasp.

That's because your point changed. Your original point was that Ron Paul never quoted the Bible. This is a clear undisputable counterexample to your claim.

 

[tribute_13]

ummm.... Christians don't do Popes.......

OMFG!!! I was totally under the impression that Christianity was divided between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics having Popes... Corn is a vegetable but a vegetable in not necessarily corn...

 

[Brassmouth]

That's an arrangement I'm completely satisfied with.

Not according to your previous posts, where you obviously take issue with the voluntary contracts of homosexuals when they included the word "marriage."

I'm pretty sure I never mentioned a debate.

Also, in the debates, Ron Paul defended his foreign policy stance by calling Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace

^

I'm pretty sure you did.

That's because your point changed. Your original point was that Ron Paul never quoted the Bible. This is a clear undisputable counterexample to your claim.

My point didn't change at all. My point from the beginning was that the phrase "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" does not carry any religious meaning at all. It is a completely secular statement. Just because the words appeared in the bible does not mean the words are sacred.

And my original point was that Ron Paul does not quote the bible in his political or economic teachings/speeches. He also does not advocate laws based on religion. You are trying to twist my words by resurrecting an irrelevant article where he wishes his readers merry xmas. A sorry display, indeed.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Not according to your previous posts, where you obviously take issue with the voluntary contracts of homosexuals when they included the word "marriage."

Wow, this must be a really difficult concept. I did not take an issue with contracts, I took issue with licenses. There's a very clear difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license

^
I'm pretty sure you did.

Nice catch, although that was for an unrelated quote.

My point didn't change at all. My point from the beginning was that the phrase "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" does not carry any religious meaning at all. It is a completely secular statement. Just because the words appeared in the bible does not mean the words are sacred.

And my original point was that Ron Paul does not quote the bible in his political or economic teachings/speeches. He also does not advocate laws based on religion. You are trying to twist my words by resurrecting an irrelevant article where he wishes his readers merry xmas. A sorry display, indeed.

If that was too irrelevant, here's a better picture of Ron Paul's view of religion and state:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

 

[Brassmouth]

Wow, this must be a really difficult concept. I did not take an issue with contracts, I took issue with licenses. There's a very clear difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license

Regardless of how you word it, gay marriage in no way infringes on your rights. Your beliefs are based utterly on superstition and destructive religious dogma.

Nice catch, although that was for an unrelated quote.

Actually it was for the exact quote you were referencing. That began the whole RP quote fiasco you started. Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts. I take it you're having trouble remembering your own conversation.

If that was too irrelevant, here's a better picture of Ron Paul's view of religion and state:

Again, irrelevant. Dr. Paul is not stating that religious beliefs should influence law. He is merely stating his thoughts on intent of the Founders with respect to the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. I'd say "try again," but I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself to someone who is obviously so close-minded he is incapable of grasping a simple concept. I suggest we let this thread die. It's clear that Baldwin is indisputably a religious zealot, only concerned with pushing his disturbing views on others. This thread was only the latest in a long line of threads that established this fact.

 

[mitty]

Again, irrelevant. Dr. Paul is not stating that religious beliefs should influence law. He is merely stating his thoughts on intent of the Founders with respect to the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. I'd say "try again," but I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself to someone who is obviously so close-minded he is incapable of grasping a simple concept. I suggest we let this thread die. It's clear that Baldwin is indisputably a religious zealot, only concerned with pushing his disturbing views on others. This thread was only the latest in a long line of threads that established this fact.

yawn. obviously dr. paul supports baldwin forcing people to convert to christianity or sentencing them to death. yet you still support ron paul. how....hypocritical?

 

[Theocrat]

Please Research Before You Post

yawn. obviously dr. paul supports baldwin forcing people to convert to christianity or sentencing them to death. yet you still support ron paul. how....hypocritical?

Where in Dr. Baldwin's platform did he ever state that he would force people to convert to Christianity? I wonder if you've ever watched this video where Dr. Baldwin explains his beliefs about religious freedom. If you haven't, please do so, and cease the slanderous remarks.

 

[Dary]

Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

I'd rather see the government get out of it all together, but until it does, then I support any gay person fighting for equal protection and I'd vote for it. If there were an initiative to do away with the whole thing, then I'd support that too.

 

[torchbearer]

Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

I'd rather see the government get out of it all together, but until it does, then I support any gay person fighting for equal protection and I'd vote for it. If there were an initiative to do away with the whole thing, then I'd support that too.

+1

 

[RonPaulMania]

Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.

What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Read above.

Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

Ditto.

As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out? Let me tell you something, when you abdicate reason excessive abdication is soon to follow. As an example, look at what happens when you claim an enemy and then fight it without just principles.

What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Reason is fair. Being unreasonable is not fair. Imposing sentiment is not reasonable. Feelings are irrelevant.

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

 

[Dary]

Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.

If it weren't for humans, then marriage itself would be against natural law. Marriage is a man made institution (just like divorce).

There may be examples in nature where life long relationships are maintained till death, but there are all kinds of other relationships too. Lion prides, bee cultures, elephant societies. Yes and even homosexual relationships within the animal kingdom and regardless of the reasons for it (low rank, shortages, disease, whatever) it happens.

In the plant world, animal world (and yes even in the human world) there are many examples of hermaphrodite species.

Even ducks don't apply for marriage licenses.

So I don't buy the whole natural law argument. I suspect that the intention is to equate natural law with Christian law (and I don't buy that either).

Besides, if two people love each other and they want to obtain a marriage license for the purposes of getting married, then, that seems pretty natural and reasonable to me.

I was always taught that love was universal.

As far as rationality goes, are you saying that people who act unreasonable should have their rights and privileges denied? Because if you are then I suspect we would all be in deep trouble. Is there one of us perfect?

So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out?

I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Well I don't know how any of that has to do with my post, the one that you are responding to, but yeah, I can see how that might happen. If someone were denying my rights and privileges, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

...can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state...

Can you explain how a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party, ran in into the ground and destroyed the country in the process? Same thing.

 

[kombayn]

Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.



Read above.



Ditto.



So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out? Let me tell you something, when you abdicate reason excessive abdication is soon to follow. As an example, look at what happens when you claim an enemy and then fight it without just principles.



Reason is fair. Being unreasonable is not fair. Imposing sentiment is not reasonable. Feelings are irrelevant.

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

Oh please, just admit it. You don't like homosexuals and you don't want them to marry because for whatever reason, you think it's a Christians right to inherit the word marriage.

I would just like to say, welcome to the 21st century, we're in a time where our societies culture is changing. We're about to have a black President, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, gays, etc. are living together peacefully.

I fully support the rights of gay people getting married. Our Declaration of Independence stated that everyone was created equally, so in my eyes that means gays have equal rights as straights and they should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you're discriminating and that's that.

Then again I live in a socially diverse area where things like this are more commonly accepted. In the end, Gay Marriage will eventually be a worldwide accepted ideal. It's just like when the blacks fought for their civil rights and wanted to end segregation. It'll happen, there is nothing you can do to stop it either.

 

[RonPaulMania]

If it weren't for humans, then marriage itself would be against natural law. Marriage is a man made institution (just like divorce).

Marriage is both a man and a God made institution. The reasons for marriage are based on natural law. Heterosexual activity is part of the natural law, homosexuality is against the natural law. Public homosexuality is not only against natural law, but has huge health risks not inherent with heterosexuality. This is a known fact.

Yes and even homosexual relationships within the animal kingdom and regardless of the reasons for it (low rank, shortages, disease, whatever) it happens.

That's part of the homosexual lie. There are no animals that actively commit the act of homosexuality as a specific act intrinsic to their nature. This has been debunked, but just like many common beliefs which are urban legend it continues within certain circles.

In the plant world, animal world (and yes even in the human world) there are many examples of hermaphrodite species.

The natural law isn't an application of animals to man, but man to reason.

Even ducks don't apply for marriage licenses.

I don't know how that applies. No duck commits homosexual acts.

So I don't buy the whole natural law argument. I suspect that the intention is to equate natural law with Christian law (and I don't buy that either).

The natural law applies nature to reason. Man isn't an animal. Animals don't have reason. The natural law was believed in before Christianity. Read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, written 300 years before Christ.

Besides, if two people love each other and they want to obtain a marriage license for the purposes of getting married, then, that seems pretty natural and reasonable to me.

Again, your sentiments are irrelevant. My feelings about eating dynamite is irrelevant. The first principle of natural law is to identify the act and it's purpose, and then apply ethics to those purposes. The eyes are made for seeing, and the mind for learning truth. If I was opposed to learning 2+2=blue you would agree, and that's part of natural law. It applies to all acts judged by their proper act. Teleology has been studied and taught before Christian morals.

I was always taught that love was universal.

Misplaced love can be detrimental and a hindrance to what love is, namely the desire to seek the objective good for yourself and others. If it doesn't apply to objective good than it does not apply. If my love for someone is restrictive like stalking it wouldn't be good, if my love was against reason it would destroy one's search for objective goodness.

As far as rationality goes, are you saying that people who act unreasonable should have their rights and privileges denied? Because if you are then I suspect we would all be in deep trouble. Is there one of us perfect?

It depends on the effect. If the effect is limited to acts that would not hurt society as a whole than no. Personal sins such as lying should not be punished, when they become public and conspicuous libel a person can have recourse to capital reimbursement and even criminal actions. The word "fire" if said privately has no recourse, but yelled in a building is a crime. The act of homosexuality is so abhorrent against nature it should be public prosecuted, and privately tolerated.

I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."

What you are saying is that everyone, without recourse to reason, should be given a marriage license. Should fathers be able to marry daughters then? You haven't thought this through.

Well I don't know how any of that has to do with my post, the one that you are responding to, but yeah, I can see how that might happen. If someone were denying my rights and privileges, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

I wasn't responding to your post, and therefore held it to the end. I was responding to the people screaming that we are attacking them, but we aren't using the "F" word, or using disgusting language. If you think they have that right maybe I should do it back for effect. Of course the same such people would scream even more and push for a ban against my liberties, but I expect that from secular totalitarians who prize the religion of secularity higher than anything else and defend it staunchly and will shout down any other expression than their own. You see we are birds of the same feather, except I take reason for my ground, and most of your side take secular talking points without much thought and throw labels around as a good response.

Can you explain how a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party, ran in into the ground and destroyed the country in the process? Same thing.

I'll tell you what, if don't purposely evade a question that makes you uncomfortable because it contradicts your purpose and answer it I'll be happy to answer your inquiry. You cannot expect me to answer a question with a question as an answer. Your evading the topic, but it's obvious.

 

[Dary]

Marriage is both a man and a God made institution.

Whatever. You win. Who could fight against that logic? God says so, so it must be true.

You speak of reason then use God to back up your argument. God requires faith. Reason be damned.

There are no animals that actively commit the act of homosexuality as a specific act intrinsic to their nature.

How do you know? The fact that they do it in itself makes it natural.

I don't know how that applies. No duck commits homosexual acts.

It was apparently a vain attempt at humor in order to keep the conversation somewhat lighthearted. Since it was lost, they don't apply for marriage licenses either. That's how it applies.

Again, your sentiments are irrelevant.

You said reason was fair.

I said that "What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me."

I was speaking of fairness. Reason. Why are you trying to pigeonhole my agruements as being solely based on feelings?

Misplaced love can be detrimental and a hindrance to what love is,

Who are you to determine which love is detrimental? God? Wasn't it god who said do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Would you have gay people deny your privileges and rights?

It depends on the effect. If the effect is limited to acts that would not hurt society as a whole than no.

And here I thought that we were living in a free country, one in which individual rights we held above all else. Granting a marriage license has no direct threat against you or anyone else.

Should fathers be able to marry daughters then?

Are they consenting adults?

...most of your side take secular talking points...

...evade a question that makes you uncomfortable...

I'm not evading anything or uncomfortable. I'm not on anyone's side and I don't have a purpose. I'm just a guy on a message board who saw something that I disagree with so I thought I would post about it.

Let me put it another way. In the same way that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party and destroyed the country, so it was that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took control and passed laws against a people they considered immoral.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."

You're right. The state shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Oh please, just admit it. You don't like homosexuals and you don't want them to marry because for whatever reason, you think it's a Christians right to inherit the word marriage.

Like a typical secularist you don't use reason and make assumptions. If my mother was an alcoholic should I hate her too? If a person commits an act it doesn't mean I hate them, but the act is still reprehensible.

I would just like to say, welcome to the 21st century, we're in a time where our societies culture is changing. We're about to have a black President, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, gays, etc. are living together peacefully.

What does race and homosexuality have to do with anything? As a white male I spent 2 years of my life working with poor hispanics and blacks in Belize and Guatemala. Do you want to compare records?

I fully support the rights of gay people getting married. Our Declaration of Independence stated that everyone was created equally, so in my eyes that means gays have equal rights as straights and they should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you're discriminating and that's that.

Does that mean that a father can marry his daughter too?

Then again I live in a socially diverse area where things like this are more commonly accepted. In the end, Gay Marriage will eventually be a worldwide accepted ideal. It's just like when the blacks fought for their civil rights and wanted to end segregation. It'll happen, there is nothing you can do to stop it either.

Actually there is, and that's move. I'm not there yet. What's strange is this Christianity you pretend is a curse among the people is the same thing that kept most countries free. Well you can have your secular world, slavery comes free of charge. If you think Christianity doesn't allow divergence of opinion, wait until the world you think is coming gives you a shot at free speech.

 

[RonPaulMania]

God says so, so it must be true.

You speak of reason then use God to back up your argument. God requires faith. Reason be damned.

So reason and God are exclusive? You know you haven't thought about a whole lot about life if you really believe that, because for one I've never said that, and two you are making a false dichotomy. What if I said I like reason and my imagination, would reason be damned as well? The word "and" connotes 2 separate realities.

I never said God said so, that's why I appealed to natural reason. Although, parenthetically speaking, if God does say so it is true. Philosophy does not contradict theology.

How do you know?

Because I've studied issues thoroughly and have studied both sides of issues. There is no natural homosexuality in the entire animal kingdom with actual acts performed. There are simulations for dominance, but it is not relationship based. I'm not calling you an ignoramus, just that you should be familiar with both sides of an argument to realize in this field of study there is no argument as there are no facts to support the "animal" proofs of homosexuality which have been debunked as much as the "Missing Link" of the 50's they found.

I was speaking of fairness. Reason. Why are you trying to pigeonhole my agruements as being solely based on feelings?

You have referred to what you think, which is really how you have an intuition about. These are based on sentiment, not objectivity. You see it doesn't matter what something seems like or what we think about something, but what something is. Our minds are made to grasp reality, not reality for the mind. The statement "I think" is an act of trying to make a conclusion, not to state them. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, which is understandable.

Who are you to determine which love is detrimental? God? Wasn't it god who said do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Would you have gay people deny your privileges and rights?

Telling the truth is what I would want others doing onto to me. My subjective feelings about what I want done is not the same thing as true charity. Charity belongs with truth. God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth. If a homosexual denied my rights I would still in all charity tell him that he has denied the laws of God, and has denied natural law (reason).

I have tried to appeal to teleological truths from natural law and not the Bible. Teleology is the study of cause and effect from natural law. It's used to understand how things work. The eye is made for seeing, etc.. It's not hard, and you don't need Scripture.

You certainly aren't going to tell me what is or isn't Scripture and pretend it's my fault for quoting the Bible when I haven't done it once. You know what you are doing? You are trying to find a hole that isn't there as a contradistinction and ram it down my throat as an argument I've never made. This is commonly called a straw-man argument, in logic they would call this an illogical supposition based on a poorly constructed compound premise. I prefer the term strawman.

And here I thought that we were living in a free country, one in which individual rights we held above all else. Granting a marriage license has no direct threat against you or anyone else.

But it does. Freedom implies morality. Think of one freedom which doesn't imply the moral code. No is free to steal, murder, scream fire, or hurt other people randomly either through slander or physically. When someone dies by another's hand we judge the morality of the act as either manslaughter, murder, or self-defense. Morality is the basis for all law.

Are they consenting adults?

In this question yes. Can a father lawfully marry his daughter in your version of freedom if they were consenting adults?

Let me put it another way. In the same way that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party and destroyed the country, so it was that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took control and passed laws against a people they considered immoral.

I don't get the connection you are making, and if you want to elucidate me I'm completely open to hearing your argument, but I think you are saying that neo-cons destroyed the country based on the same view of law as myself. I would answer that people are prone to abuse no matter what name or blame you give them. Clinton did the same things as Bush from illegal war, going after Saddam, and all the spy routine on the American public.

I don't think it's a neo-con Rep or a liberal Dem thing, it's a power thing based on money. They pander to their constituencies to get the vote, and abuse power through their party to special interests. Do you really think Obama and the Dems are going to "change" anything?

You still haven't answered my question about the founding fathers view of homosexuality as a state law effectively prohibiting public displays in every state in this country until the last 40 years.

 

[torchbearer]

And people wonder why the religious bigots get their asses raped on this forum all the time.
Its equal treatment under the law unless you are a faggot right?

I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

 

[Theocrat]

Double Standard?

Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

Congressman Paul once said,

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity...

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Did Dr. Paul lose your vote, even though he stated this? If not, then why should your vote be lost for Dr. Baldwin just because of his views on marriage?