Before you donate to Young Americans for Liberty...

Your link didn't work for me.

I'm a member of YAL. As far as I'm concerned, it's a legitimate organization.

The magazine they send you in the mail alone is worth the (I think it was) $20 membership.

Spreading the Liberty message on college campuses is very important to the future of this country, therefore YAL and it's colleagues are important.
 
Your link didn't work for me.

I'm a member of YAL. As far as I'm concerned, it's a legitimate organization.

The magazine they send you in the mail alone is worth the (I think it was) $20 membership.

Spreading the Liberty message on college campuses is very important to the future of this country, therefore YAL and it's colleagues are important.

It still works for me. Maybe you need to be signed into Facebook or something.
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Speaking to a group of religious conservatives in Iowa, Republican Congressman Ron Paul (TX) said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the controversial legislation protects states’ rights.

In February, President Barack Obama decided that a key section of the DOMA a Clinton-era law that restricts the benefits of marriage to a man and a woman only, was unconstitutional, and ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending it.

During a speech organized by the Christian conservative group The Family Leader, Rep. Paul said the president’s goal “is really to undermine state law that defines marriage” and that marriage should ultimately not involve government, the SourceMedia Group reported.


“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said the House of Representatives would defend DOMA if the Department of Justice would not.

“It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy,” Rep. Boehner said.

Public support for same-sex marriage continues to rise, according to a survey released last week by the Pew Research Center.

The poll found that 45 percent of adults surveyed favored allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry, compared to only 42 percent last year. Forty-six percent of those surveyed were opposed to same-sex marriage, a decline of 19 percent since 1996.
 
Did it not take away power that the states had to fully legitimize gay marriage? Or do I misunderstand it?

No. It let states retain their power not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
 
This is one area where Ron and I part ways. Marriage isn't something to be "protected" other than the government making sure everyone has the freedom to do it.
 
Ron has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. On one hand, he says the government should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever. Then in Iowa, he railed against Obama Administration/Holder for saying they wouldn't enforce DOMA (pandering for votes).

I see the courts decision as a very good thing, even if the correct decision was not derived with the correct logic.
The State has no authority to define marriage or preside over it, period. Good work Boston Court.
 
Ron has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. On one hand, he says the government should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever. Then in Iowa, he railed against Obama Administration/Holder for saying they wouldn't enforce DOMA (pandering for votes).

I see the courts decision as a very good thing, even if the correct decision was not derived with the correct logic.
The State has no authority to define marriage or preside over it, period. Good work Boston Court.

It is to stop a one-size-fits-all federal government mandate. He hasn't been inconsistent at all.
 
I am going to have to start reading the YAL stuff they're sending, because it looks like the liberals have managed to grab control of that, too.
 
Ron has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. On one hand, he says the government should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever. Then in Iowa, he railed against Obama Administration/Holder for saying they wouldn't enforce DOMA (pandering for votes).

I don't see that as talking out both sides of his mouth, I see it as consistency. And it's not just pandering for votes, that's been his long standing position.
 
It is to stop a one-size-fits-all federal government mandate. He hasn't been inconsistent at all.

Calling DOMA unconstitutional and arguing against the philosophical grounds on which it was established and then attacking the federal government for not enforcing the law seems pretty two sided to me.

He has been consistent in taking both sides of the issue.
 

And yes, DOMA is one of those things that Ron is wrong about. Simply pointing out his position, then saying because of it that DOMA is a good thing, is lazy.

Ron has always pandered a bit to the religious haters among the R party. And that's the biggest problem I have always had with Ron. That doesn't negate my support for Ron, but it does mean he's not perfect. Nobody is.
 
I don't see that as talking out both sides of his mouth, I see it as consistency. And it's not just pandering for votes, that's been his long standing position.

Using this same logic, Ron should be pushing for aggressive enforcement of federal drug laws. Actually, since state drug laws don't violate the constitution, I would argue that his position on DOMA is even more indefensible. Marriage is a religious institution as Ron is so quick to point out and we are guaranteed the freedom to practice religion how we see fit.
 
I would like to know if YAL has an official position on it though, if not then that shouldnt have been posted on their account.

I doub't YAL has an official position on this microscopic of an issue... It most likely was just a person with access to YAL's facebook posting his opinion.

Some things are better left for us to debate ourselves, so long as we agree on the major pillars of Liberty and Peace.
 
Back
Top