does RP support gay marriage?

[uncollapse]

Oh wait... there is a loop hole. A gay couple could be married in one state and single in another state, if that state does not recognise their marriage. Would this pose a problem?

 

[uncollapse]

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.

I had checked and could not find any resource on this subject. Link me up if you know.

 

[Tdcci]

Oh wait... there is a loop hole. A gay couple could be married in one state and single in another state, if that state does not recognise their marriage. Would this pose a problem?

This is already happening with some states recognizing same-sex marriage and others not. You retain none of your previous rights in the bigoted state.

 

[RSLudlum]

Get it straight from the Doctor's mouth

source

Gay Marriage Quicksand

The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.

However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.

But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.

The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.

It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.

Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.

link to Ron Paul's stances on marriage here

 

[ARealConservative]

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

you asked about gay marraiges.

 

[uncollapse]

This is already happening with some states recognizing same-sex marriage and others not. You retain none of your previous rights in the intolerant state.

So, should this be a State business or a Federal business?

 

[Tdcci]

I think Ron Paul is completely misunderstanding the pro-gay marriage stance. Federalizing gay marriage would not give any more power to the federal government, except maybe their time in court cases if the states resist, and they shall rightfully be crushed for violating the American spirit of equal rights for all.

 

[ARealConservative]

tax policy is more important to the good Dr.

Instead of a post about marraiges, we should be discussing his position on murages.

 

[Tdcci]

So, should this be a State business or a Federal business?

Both. State if they comply, Federal if they don't. Don't make a strawman for me that wants everything federalized, though.

 

[uncollapse]

Under RP administration, we would have 25 state that allows gay marriage, 25 states ban gay marriage. We would have 25 states allow abortion, 25 states ban abortion. and 25 states ban drugs, 25 states allow drugs. 25 states ban smoking, 25 states allow smoking. 25 states ban guns, 25 states allow guns. etc.. etc... Sound pretty to me way to spice things up. Why don't we divide america into 50 countries?

 

[ARealConservative]

Under RP administration, we would have 25 state that allows gay marriage, 25 states ban gay marriage. We would have 25 states allow abortion, 25 states ban abortion. and 25 states ban drugs, 25 states allow drugs. 25 states ban smoking, 25 states allow smoking. 25 states ban guns, 25 states allow guns. etc.. etc... Sound pretty to me way to spice things up. Why don't we divide america into 50 countries?

better yet, why don't we go invade Mexico and make them comply with our wishes on gay marriage, abortion, and a whole bunch of other social issues.

I figure if we want to intervene in one government, why simply stop at state lines?

 

[uncollapse]

In your opinion we should further localised this effect. Then make it at counties level. 3000 counties ban gay marriage. 3000 counties allow gay marriage.

 

[Tdcci]

better yet, why don't we go invade Mexico and make them comply with our wishes on gay marriage, abortion, and a whole bunch of other social issues.

I figure if we want to intervene in one government, why simply stop at state lines?

I think it could be done, it would be a better cost/return investment than Iraq, I mean, they're closer, maybe we could accept some of their states as ours (Mexico is also a federation). Better have a constitutional North American Union than an unaccountable one (of course we'd have to make some compromises with Canada, universal health care and decriminalized marijuana doesn't sound so bad).

 

[katjust]

Under RP administration, we would have 25 state that allows gay marriage, 25 states ban gay marriage. We would have 25 states allow abortion, 25 states ban abortion. and 25 states ban drugs, 25 states allow drugs. 25 states ban smoking, 25 states allow smoking. 25 states ban guns, 25 states allow guns. etc.. etc... Sound pretty to me way to spice things up. Why don't we divide america into 50 countries?

I don't think it would break down quite that way. And in any case, I'm not sure whether you realize this, but states and especially cities already have many differing laws on a myriad of topics. That is a good thing. Why? Because if I don't like living in Washington D.C. I move to somewhere else. If I don't like the laws of USA, where do I move? Canada? Mexico? Maybe so, but it is a lot harder.

 

[Tdcci]

I don't think it would break down quite that way. And in any case, I'm not sure whether you realize this, but states and especially cities already have many differing laws on a myriad of topics. That is a good thing. Why? Because if I don't like living in Washington D.C. I move to somewhere else. If I don't like the laws of USA, where do I move? Canada? Mexico? Maybe so, but it is a lot harder.

Yeah, just think of the pro-slavery citizens of the South, where will they go?

 

[ARealConservative]

I think it could be done, it would be a better cost/return investment than Iraq, I mean, they're closer, maybe we could accept some of their states as ours (Mexico is also a federation). Better have a constitutional North American Union than an unaccountable one (of course we'd have to make some compromises with Canada, universal health care and decriminalized marijuana doesn't sound so bad).

of course it can be tried.

The very first Governments have sought to rule the 4 corners of the earth. You start with your immediate neighbors and work your way out.

And of course we will have compromise. We are a democracy! As soon as we annex Mexico and Canada, they will get to vote in our fair and honest elections and decide how to handle gay marriage, abortion, and if a business can serve beer and show nudity at the same time.

 

[katjust]

Yeah, just think of the pro-slavery citizens of the South, where will they go?

What is your point? I was only pointing out that being able to choose a state or city in which to live that more closely matches one's political philosophy is overall a positive, not a negative.

Ron Paul is a libertarian at heart and does not believe that even state governments should restricts civil liberties. However, he recognizes that differences in state laws are allowed by the Constitution.

 

[Tdcci]

What is your point? I was only pointing out that being able to choose a state or city in which to live that more closely matches one's political philosophy is overall a positive, not a negative.

Except if you're a black person living in the south. abortion and gay marriage are essential matters of life, liberty, and property and depriving someone of them as soon as they cross state boundaries is reprehensible.

 

[Signzit]

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

This is the first time I've ever heard someone say, they thought Ron Paul gave a vague, misleading, convoluted or confusing answer to ANY question EVER!

Ron Paul is the clearest man in Washington. Even his most ardent opponents give him those props. My boy calls a spade a spade. That's why they did their best to shut him down. That did not work and so the fear your bosses have of Ron Paul is real. He calls it ,like he see it!

and in that same tone, I am calling you out uncollapse as a hack, in here disrupting like abe.

Like I told your buddy/co-worker, abe...

We won't tell your bosses your wasting their money in here. Nothing you can post here will will sway anyone, those weak minded easily lead fucks are gone! I have some questions for you tho and abe if he wants.

What do you get, like .25cents a post?
how many boards do you work?
How many screens do you use?
Are you talking to other boards now?
Like at the same time, like, Now?
Do you have to keep track of your own post count or is there software that logs it for you guys?
Do you get a bonus if your thread booms to like 20 pages deep?
How many people do you deploy, to a given board at one time?
Do you ever, like, with, like 50 of you, just go bum-rush a board and just power troll?
Do you work from home or do you have to go to some cubical?
Are a you Pageboy for Barney Frank?

That's all i got, for now but I would encourage other members curious as to the operations of uncollapse and abe here at Ron Paul Forums to please chime in with their own questions!

 

[Tdcci]

Ron Paul is easy to support as a federal politician, because he would delegate a lot of power to the states. I definitely wouldn't support him if he were running for state office, because of his views on many state issues, one of which is gay marriage. He has said that if he were a Texas legislator, he would not vote to, in his own words, "redefine marriage". This matters because it gives you insight into how he thinks, and what his core beliefs are, and I think he has been scarred by a conservative upbringing and a violent suppressive religion. One day I hope Ron can be superceded with someone that, while sharing most of his views, has a reasonable amount of charisma, supports gay marriage, is an atheist, and has no dirty laundry like the newsletters. Libertarianism is the most rational political philosophy, marrying it with the most rational religious philosophy would make it perfect.