Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Brett85]

I'd be willing to accept that argument if RP has come out in favor of abolishing special benefits to married people.

He's said many times that government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

 

[scottditzen]

You can make a conservative case against the federal drug war and intervention overseas. You can't make a conservative case in favor of government recognition of gay marriages.

Well, that depends on how you define "conservative." Which since we probably have different ideas on it, makes no sense to debate the term. But just curious, would you prefer state or local drug war?

My point is, this issue makes RP look like a hypocrite.

 

[Brett85]

He is socially libertarian, not socially liberal. Social liberals are every bit as authoritarian as social conservatives who want to legislate their views. Social libertarians can have personal social liberal or social conservative views, but don't want to legislate stuff.

Remember liberal is not equivalent to libertarian. Libertarian is not equivalent to fiscal con / social lib.

Just hang around some people who are "social liberals" and you will see a huge difference. Like go to far left liberal boards. Social liberals freak the hell out of me, they're insane.

Yeah. Some people claim that a libertarian is somebody who's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but if you go by that definition you could call somebody like Olympia Snowe a libertarian.

 

[Kludge]

He's definitely come out for abolishing the tax benefits for them, since that would be included in getting rid of the income tax. What are the other federal benefits that he still needs to come out against?

There are social security benefits, as well. If your spouse earns more than you, you get additional benefits. I think RP IS in favor of phasing out SS, though, so... ... Alright.

 

[Brett85]

Well, that depends on how you define "conservative." Which since we probably have different ideas on it, makes no sense to debate the term. But just curious, would you prefer state or local drug war?

My point is, this issue makes RP look like a hypocrite.

My position is that drug use should at least be decriminalized at the local level. I'm undecided as to whether full legalization would be the best way to go or not. But I would say that most conservatives probably support drug prohibition at least at the local level. I'm more of a libertarian conservative.

 

[scottditzen]

My position is that drug use should at least be decriminalized at the local level. I'm undecided as to whether full legalization would be the best way to go or not. But I would say that most conservatives probably support drug prohibition at least at the local level. I'm more of a libertarian conservative.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. I appreciate your view, I just disagree.

After re-reading this entire thread....from a personal and logical standpoint I guess I'm just on the outs with Ron Paul on this issue!

 

[erowe1]

There are social security benefits, as well. If your spouse earns more than you, you get additional benefits. I think RP IS in favor of phasing out SS, though, so... ... Alright.

That's another good example of how expanding the definition of marriage to include more couples would equate to bigger government. It would mean increasing Social Security payouts.

The consistent position for us has to be the one that supports decreasing those benefits and decreasing the number of people eligible for them, while opposing any attempts to increase those benefits and increase the number of people eligible for them.

 

[ItsTime]

How many people saw this in Iowa?

 

[silentshout]

This was bothering me last night, and maybe I have more of an issue with this as a former progressive, but still, I agree with RP on more things than I disagree with him on, which is saying a lot. I am also pro-choice and support him. Can't agree with someone on everything i guess.

 

[erowe1]

There's also a realpolitik reason for those of us who are against government involvement in marriage also to be against licensing gay marriages.

As it is now, there are some pro-gay marriage folks who would go along with us in wanting to get government out of marriage. But once they get their benefits, which I see as not very far off in the future, don't expect them to go along with us on that any more.

 

[TonySutton]

That's another good example of how expanding the definition of marriage to include more couples would equate to bigger government. It would mean increasing Social Security payouts.

The consistent position for us has to be the one that supports decreasing those benefits and decreasing the number of people eligible for them, while opposing any attempts to increase those benefits and increase the number of people eligible for them.

So are you in favor of reestablishing laws against interracial marriages? That will certainly decrease the number of people eligible for federal benefits.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd be willing to accept that argument if RP has come out in favor of abolishing special benefits to married people.

Well, I think trying to abolish the income tax pretty much qualifies, for that point. And he has said he wants the govt out of marriage altogether. What this shows is how he comes down when the government IS involved and eliminating that isn't on the table, and when the govt pits two groups against eachother by triggering benefits with a sacrament, he obviously shaves things towards 'his side' (marriage sacrament determined by the church) while still preferring the government be out altogether.

I'd like to see him introduce a bill to make a different trigger for federal action, personally. Then we can reduce expenditures, but more fairly.

 

[Brett85]

So are you in favor of reestablishing laws against interracial marriages? That will certainly decrease the number of people eligible for federal benefits.

Comparing race to sexual preference is an apples to oranges comparison. I'm not sure if we want to go in that direction in this thread.

 

[erowe1]

So are you in favor of reestablishing laws against interracial marriages? That will certainly decrease the number of people eligible for federal benefits.

No. We're not talking about banning any marriages (see my previous posts objecting to those who refer to laws against licensing marriages as "gay marriage bans").

But, to follow up on your line of argument (which I think is fair)...

Would I be for restriction of marriage benefits to same-race couples? That's a very good question. I honestly don't know. But I will definitely say this. If such a law were to be proposed, and I were to oppose that law, then I would be taking the big-government, anti-libertarian position. I would certainly not deny that.

 

[ItsTime]

Almost all the licenses I can get here in New Hampshire are no good in Vermont.

 

[scottditzen]

This was bothering me last night, and maybe I have more of an issue with this as a former progressive, but still, I agree with RP on more things than I disagree with him on, which is saying a lot. I am also pro-choice and support him. Can't agree with someone on everything i guess.

What bothers me much much more about disagreeing with his personal belief on the issue, is that I don't understand the logical justification for how he supports DOMA.

 

[scottditzen]

No. We're not talking about banning any marriages (see my previous posts objecting to those who refer to laws against licensing marriages as "gay marriage bans").

But, to follow up on your line of argument (which I think is fair)...

Would I be for restriction of marriage benefits to same-race couples? That's a very good question. I honestly don't know. But I will definitely say this. If such a law were to be proposed, and I were to oppose that law, then I would be taking the big-government, anti-libertarian position. I would certainly not deny that.

erowe1, I think you guys just brought out an example of the anti-libertarian position providing more freedom to the individual.

 

[erowe1]

erowe1, please clarify...are you saying you're personally opposed to different-race couples?

No. I don't believe there's such a thing as different races (at least not that can be objectively defined). And those who do believe there's such a thing as different races would usually consider my wife to be a different race than I am.

All I'm saying is that if there were a proposed law to restrict government marriage benefits to same-race couples, and if I were to oppose that law (which I concede that I very well might), then I would not be able to pretend that my opposition to that law is somehow rooted in a libertarian or small-government philosophy.

Similarly, I think that people who want to expand federal marriage benefits to gay couples should stop pretending that their position on that has anything at all to do with being libertarians. They might have good reasons for their view (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument they might). But whatever those reasons are, there's nothing libertarian about them.

 

[Brett85]

erowe1, I think you guys just brought out an example of the anti-libertarian position providing more freedom to the individual.

It's ridiculous to compare race to a behavior like homosexuality. It's a proven fact that people are born with a certain race. There's no scientific evidence at all to suggest that people are born gay.

 

[Brett85]

What bothers me much much more about disagreeing with his personal belief on the issue, is that I don't understand the logical justification for how he supports DOMA.

The logical justification is that DOMA protects states' rights. Without it certain states would be forced to recognize marriages in other states.