does RP support gay marriage?

[uncollapse]

 

[nate895]

He supports letting states decide the matter, though he would pick not having any state sanctioned marriages.

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

I believe the words he used at the Google Interview were that he supported any contractual agreement / partnership between consenting adults...at least that is how I understood it.

Can someone clarify?

 

[uncollapse]

A friend told me he voted for a bill that ban gay marraiges.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Uncollapse you are a habitual agitator and have been flagged.

 

[ARealConservative]

A friend told me he voted for a bill that ban gay marraiges.

radical marraiges will destroy this country if left unchecked.

 

[soapmistress]

I am pretty sure this came up during the Myspace MTV debate

 

[uncollapse]

radical marraiges will destroy this country if left unchecked.

So this is indeed true. RP wants to ban gay marriage. How can one defend his position from a libertarian standpoint?

 

[MikeSmith]

So this is indeed true. RP wants to ban gay marriage. How can one defend his position from a libertarian standpoint?

State issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

 

[Bradley in DC]

A friend told me he voted for a bill that ban gay marraiges.

He voted for a spending limitation amendment regarding the issue in DC--he votes for ALL spending limitation amendments. Your friend is confusing the two issues.

 

[uncollapse]

State issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

wow. confusing answer. Federal should be out of it. State should be out of it. Look in the dictionary.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Thank you Bradley.

 

[katjust]

Ron Paul didn't vote to ban gay marriage. Your friend is wrong. He has the only correct position in this whole debate. Marriage is not properly a government issue. Governments can enforce contracts, but should not give special titles to relationships between people. It definitely should not be involved in personal and religious issues like marriage.

 

[LibertyEagle]

wow. confusing answer. Federal should be out of it. State should be out of it. Look in the dictionary.

Why is it confusing? Have we gotten to a point where we think that the government at any level (federal or state) has to be involved in every aspect of our lives? What business is it of the government who we choose to spend our lives with? Something to ponder.

 

[Tdcci]

Why is it confusing? Have we gotten to a point where we think that the government at any level (federal or state) has to be involved in every aspect of our lives? What business is it of the government who we choose to spend our lives with? Something to ponder.

Completely ridiculous. This is not banning some act; this is not RESTRICTING our liberty, it is ENABLING us to be more free to engage in marriage with any one consenting adult, regardless of sex!

 

[Tdcci]

radical marraiges will destroy this country if left unchecked.

Yeah, just like seperation of church and state destroyed this country.

oh wait

 

[uncollapse]

Ron Paul didn't vote to ban gay marriage. Your friend is wrong. He has the only correct position in this whole debate. Marriage is not properly a government issue. Governments can enforce contracts, but should not give special titles to relationships between people. It definitely should not be involved in personal and religious issues like marriage.

Good enough answer.

 

[uncollapse]

If i can try to summarize the answer. RP point of view is that marriage is a contractual agreement between two person, heterosexual or homosexual. The state and federal has no rights under the constitution to interfere. Therefore, the state and government have to recognise/uphold the marriage contract between any two person.

Bottom line, RP is saying gay marriage is allowed and their married status must be recognised as stipulated in their mutual contractual agreement.

 

[Working Poor]

My interpretation is that Ron is against the Federal Government making an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage

 

[OptionsTrader]

If the OP were truly curious, he would visit the campaign website that discusses the issue, or do a google search. But, that was not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of the thread was to make fallacious straw man arguments to cause a disruption.