Gays and Ron Paul

[Hoover Dog 1957]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6rD-LLrrF8

Please respond to what Ron Paul's views are regarding gay marriage and how gay are individuals and not a collective group. I understand the way the Constitution prevents the government from oppressing gays, but I don't quite know how to phrase it so this person will understand how Ron Paul is really his defender and not his enemy.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

since gay people are all individuals, they have the same constitutional rights as all other individuals in the USA. This includes marriage, adoption, whatever. Its individual rights, not gay rights, black rights, women's rights, etc.

 

[Mini-Me]

I did the best I could in several 500-character posts to explain why the newsletters, Paul's socially conservative positions, and "percentage ratings" from organizations all need to be taken with a grain of salt, followed by the real reason people smear him (because he's a threat to the establishment and presents real solutions for America, rather than just serving special interests). Maybe people will listen...I dunno. It just depends on whether people really want to know or if they're content with just having an excuse to hate on the guy without further research. The cynic in me says it's the latter, because people seem to smear the most principled statesman alive with faaaar too much relish. It just amazes me how offensive newsletters (that Paul didn't even write) and tertiary issues like gay adoption (that Paul doesn't even believe the federal government should take a position on, except in D.C.) somehow outweigh the minor point that we're turning into a third-world police state. Fascism is on our doorstep, and it really sucks for us if we're not able to stop it in time, because everyone else really seems to have it coming to them.

 

[The Proservative]

The idea for any Christian conservative that marriage is a civil construct is not accepted in the slightest. The Ron Paul/Proservative view on gay marriage is one of semantics. As a man of God, Ron Paul has made an oath before God to be with Carol for life, two become one, as the Bible states, and thus married under God's eyes.

No courthouse judge can bestow this holy union of a man and a woman on any person. The Bible says that a man and a woman gives to each other under God their total and complete commitment to one another.

Ron Paul doesn't object to Gay "marriages", because by law, people can call their "arrangement" whatever that want for tax purposes (irrelevant after the abolishment of the income tax). Ron Paul knows the truth, as fellow Christians do, that marriage was/is never a function of the state, but ALWAYS a function of the Church, and thus left out of any legal argument.

 

[Mini-Me]

The idea for any Christian conservative that marriage is a civil construct is not accepted in the slightest. The Ron Paul/Proservative view on gay marriage is one of semantics. As a man of God, Ron Paul has made an oath before God to be with Carol for life, two become one, as the Bible states, and thus married under God's eyes.

No courthouse judge can bestow this holy union of a man and a woman on any person. The Bible says that a man and a woman gives to each other under God their total and complete commitment to one another.

Ron Paul doesn't object to Gay "marriages", because by law, people can call their "arrangement" whatever that want for tax purposes (irrelevant after the abolishment of the income tax). Ron Paul knows the truth, as fellow Christians do, that marriage was/is never a function of the state, but ALWAYS a function of the Church, and thus left out of any legal argument.

Well, you say "the Church" as if there's only one. Marriage is a cultural function, and religious Catholic marriage is just one example of it. However, as you said, once the state gets out of marriage, it doesn't matter what any group calls it. People will be free to decide for themselves whether or not they want to recognize Catholic marriage, Lutheran marriage, Satanic marriage, Episcopalian marriage, Jewish marriage, bigamist Mormon marriage, Muslim marriage, gay marriage (if they can't find any particular religion that will let them in), creepy Scientologist slavery marriage, etc. It's just none of the government's business to give people "licenses," as if the government gets to decide what marriage is...and it's none of the government's business to make people and businesses recognize the marriages it likes, either.

 

[The Proservative]

Well right, exactly. "The Church" meaning NOT the State. God never wanted his love forced down people's throat, and the same goes for marriage. I'm extremely impressed how Ron Paul "gets that", doesn't use his religion and a selling point.

The point about the civic ceremony, is in most Christian families, let's say Catholic, a man and woman aren't considered truly married when done in a courthouse. They'll always have a second, "real" ceremony where a priest pronounces them husband and wife, and thus only then considered fully married under God.

 

[johnwieder]

TX22 Individual Rights Violated by Government

Hey, I am straight, but my rights are so totally violated on a daily basis,
quite frankly, I think they have more rights than I do right now.
Help me get government out of my life, and the lives to many others
that cannot speak for themselves. click petition

 

[Gilby]

From a legal standpoint, marriage is just a contract between people. Sometimes it's a contract between a man, a woman, and a church, and sometimes it's something else. Does it need to be a contract with the State? The State got involved in marriage soon after the civil war, where they gave permission for a black person and a white person to get married. That transformed into what we have today where the general population presumes they need permission from the State to get married. Ron Paul, in a question involving gay marriage, said that he supports all voluntary associations with one another.

When you ask a gay person why they want the state to recognize their marriage, it's because of the perks they will get, such as the tax status, visitation rights during a health problem, and similar. All of which the government shouldn't have a say to begin with.

The problem isn't whether the State should allow gay marriage, it's whether licensing marriage is a State issue to begin with. It's not, and the only function of the government here is to enforce any voluntary contracts.

If I get married, it will not be a marriage where the State is a party as I will not get a license from the State.

 

[fisharmor]

Well, you say "the Church" as if there's only one.

There is only one Church. All the bodies you mention are man-made entities. The catholic Church - catholic does not mean "Roman Catholic", it means "unified" - is a single entity. Man-made, non-confessional bodies which don't believe this are the minority in the world.

But that's not even important to the issue at hand. As already said, marriage is not the business of the state. But I believe this is less about taxation and more about legitimacy. Gays will never find acceptance in the Church because the Church clearly teaches that their actions are an abomination.

But since the state has already assumed the power of saying what is and is not a valid marriage, they're right, it doesn't make sense that the state only recognizes marriage based on what a religious institution has to say about it.

If the state stopped saying anything about it, gays could get married in a heartbeat, as there are institutions outside the Church, such as Unitarians, Hindus, etc, which can do the job - not to mention those who are throwing out their own confessions.

Of course, that doesn't solve the legitimacy problem - still 70% or so of people claiming to be Christian will refuse to recognize it as legitimate. But I submit that state-forced recognition of gay marriage isn't going to make 70% of the world's Christians simultaneously reject the teachings of the Church, either.

 

[Tdcci]

since gay people are all individuals, they have the same constitutional rights as all other individuals in the USA. This includes marriage, adoption, whatever.

 

[fisharmor]

If logical fallacies and falsehoods don't work, try insults....

Either don't present this as an argument, or stop wondering why gay marriage advocates don't seem to be making any headway.

 

[The One]

I'm not sure, but I think that Ron Paul believes Barack Obama and his coke-snorting limousine co-passenger should be able to violate each other's cornholes within the sanctity of marriage if they want to.

 

[Tdcci]

If logical fallacies and falsehoods don't work, try insults....

I don't see the fallacy in the one size does not fit all argument.

Either don't present this as an argument, or stop wondering why gay marriage advocates don't seem to be making any headway.

1) They are making headway
2) They are recieving opposition from evangelical Christians who have to force their morality on others.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Please guys do not click on the link. Its full of insults for us. Let it die!

 

[familydog]

How can marriage be an individual right? Doesn't seem to me to be a "right" at all.

 

[Cinnaboo]

since gay people are all individuals, they have the same constitutional rights as all other individuals in the USA. This includes marriage, adoption, whatever. Its individual rights, not gay rights, black rights, women's rights, etc.

The thing about that is... marriage, adoption, even sex and procreation are technically not Constitutional rights, whether you're gay or straight. This is decided by the state level, which is something Ron Paul clearly endorses.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
- Ron Paul, 2004

For those who are not aware of Lawrence v Texas, it was a supreme court case in 2003 which struck down all sodomy laws which applied only to same sex couples. The Texas law prohibited oral and anal sex, which in Texas is legal for straight couples. I don't think I'm spinning the issue at all when I conclude that in Texas it was illegal to be gay and Ron Paul considered such a law to be Constitutional.

You might find this example absurd, but if Wyoming instituted population control -- one birth per woman and no more -- I'm pretty sure it would be Constitutionally permissible. Remember that the Constitution is a legal document, not an arbiter of justice with implied jurisdiction over the unfair. If your rights are not explicitly protected, the states can walk all over them.

After all, in Virginia it's a felony for an unmarried couple to live together. In Alabama, it is illegal for a man to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery or a promise of marriage." In Arkansas, adultery is punishable by a 20$ - 100$ fine. I could go on.

There is pretty much no Constitutional limit to how intrusive a state government can become in most matters -- marriage, adoption, whatever. And states are very much permitted to pass separate laws for gay and straight citizens.

 

[Fox McCloud]

There is pretty much no Constitutional limit to how intrusive a state government can become in most matters -- marriage, adoption, whatever. And states are very much permitted to pass separate laws for gay and straight citizens.

This is true, but the majority would have to agree to it--it's quite unlikely that a few extremist laws would pass, though, no doubt, some would.

There's always exceptions in the way Libertarians believe...take Thomas Jefferson (an esteemed Libertarian) for example, who authored a law, that stated "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

The original punishment for these acts was death, which he felt was too severe...none-the-less, it shows he still supported punishment of it, or else he wouldn't have stated that in his bill.