Chuck Baldwin on gay marriage

[libertyVI]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_baldwin.html

This seems like it would have been posted already, but I can't find it anywhere. This saddens me a little because I was probably going to vote for Chuck but this article shows that he doesn't understand the real principles of liberty and he certainly lacks critical thinking skills. Any thinking human would read this and say it's completely ridiculous. His political judgment is severely clouded by his religion (or, more accurately, what people of his religion are "supposed" to think). I really thought he was different, but I guess not.

I have nobody to vote for now. Barr won't get my vote, and neither will Baldwin. Paul write-ins aren't counted, so it's meaningless. I guess the presidential section of my ballot might just go empty.

 

[Caulfield]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

...

Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

 

[familydog]

Looks like he has the same position as Barr.

 

[libertyVI]

I knew about the CP platform. But candidates aren't exactly like the party platform, and Baldwin seemed to stray from it at some of the more authoritarian, meddling parts. Apparently not as much as I thought.

 

[Kludge]

Looks like he has the same position as Barr.

Barr says that it is a state issue.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sh...008/05/16/barr_on_gay_marriage_californi.html

 

[familydog]

Barr says that it is a state issue.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sh...008/05/16/barr_on_gay_marriage_californi.html

So does Baldwin.

They both want to see gay marriage banned at the state level as well it seems.

 

[electronicmaji]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

 

[LibertyIn08]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

I'd rather not the government be involved in religious covenants, only property ones.

But I suppose Locke's social contract theory has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

 

[FrankRep]

Okay, so you don't agree with him 100%.

Don't let one issue sway you from all the great points of Chuck Baldwin.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

No, and actually there are 3 buts about it. First, the federal government does not recognize marraige, it recognizes the states' recognition and licensure of it. Second, support for gay marriage seems based on an equal protection argument, when the concept of equal protection rights are supposed to apply to individuals, not groups. And third, it is disputable whether homosexuals are a real group, as behavior is not supposed to be a civil rights category. Presuming the federal government is supposed to directly recognize a special case when it doesn't recognize the general case, is not supposed to equate group rights with individual rights, and using the state to impose legal and social approval of a disputed group upon hundreds of millions of people of faith, is not my idea of 'liberty.'

 

[mrchubbs]

So does Baldwin.

They both want to see gay marriage banned at the state level as well it seems.

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:

"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "​

Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

 

[electronicmaji]

I don't care what you think. If straight people can get married and its recognized by the state then Gay people should be able to get married to. That fucking simple.

 

[Kludge]

We should be moving to disallow marital recognition by the state if we are a truly secular society.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. There. Problem solved.

If they're running for President, all I care about is that they believe the Constitution prohibits the federal government from getting involved in this issue. I could care less what their personal opinions are with regard to what they would like to see states do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

We should be moving to disallow marital recognition by the state if we are a truly secular society.

That's not how our country was founded, you know.

 

[Kludge]

That's not how our country was founded, you know.

Slavery.

 

[familydog]

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:

"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "​

Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

See. We can all admit it now. The main reason that people hate Baldwin is because of his religion. Well, that and he doesn't have an (L) next to his name.

All I said was that Barr, for moral reasons, has the same position as Baldwin when it comes to the states and gay marriage.

"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia."

So, why else would Barr oppose gay marriage? Why would he fight with everything he has to make sure a gay couple can't marry? He isn't as vocal about his moral opinions as Baldwin, but I fail to see the difference between the two.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Slavery.

We were not founded as a secular nation.

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with your argument.

 

[Kludge]

Errrrm... When did he say he disliked his religion?

He was arguing that his logic was flawed and is allowing his religion to influence his policies in a non-libertarian way.

 

[Kludge]

We were not founded as a secular nation.

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with your argument.

We were founded with slavery considered acceptable. The past is not relevant to now, only the ideas others left behind.