Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Pericles]

Aside from DOMA potentially being benign to the extent it encourages subsidiarity, Glenn Greenwald, who is both a principled progressive and a homosexual himself, had this to say:

In response to objections from gay groups, Obama officials -- and their supporters -- insisted that the President had no choice, that it's the duty of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of all laws enacted by Congress, and that it's dangerous for the President to pick and choose which laws to defend or not defend. That's actually a reasonable position; there is a genuine danger in having the President selectively defend Congressional statutes . . . there is a valid concern on the part of those who argue -- as Obama supporters did for the last two years -- that it's never appropriate for the DOJ to refrain from defending a statute or, at least, that it would be wrong to do so in the DOMA case.​

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

If anything, Obama should be pushing Congress to repeal DOMA.

This ^ because -
Article I

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

[Brett85]

So are you in favor of legalized polygamy? The arguments ("consenting adults"; "not hurting anyone") for both gay marriage and polygamy are basically the same thing.

Exactly.

 

[ElCount]

Ron Paul says that Government shouldn't be in the business of redefining marriage. Culturally, Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman.

Culture is absolutely irrelevant. Legally, marriage should not be defined.

It's like when Ron Paul says he is a social conservative. He is a social conservative to the extent that he holds certain values and practices them in his own personal life, but when it comes to legislating any type of moral and traditional values, Dr. Paul is about as socially liberal as you can be (except in rare cases like this one).

 

[Brett85]

but when it comes to legislating any type of moral and traditional values, Dr. Paul is about as socially liberal as you can be (except in rare cases like this one).

That's simply not true. He supports a complete ban on abortion at the state level, but just doesn't support a federal ban because he believes it would be unconstitutional. Also, if you read some of his writings reading the separation of church and state, he's a hardcore social conservative.

 

[sailingaway]

That's simply not true. He supports a complete ban on abortion at the state level, but just doesn't support a federal ban because he believes it would be unconstitutional. Also, if you read some of his writings reading the separation of church and state, he's a hardcore social conservative.

Abortion is totally different. If you think life begins at conception, that is the end of the question. You are talking about a 'choice' to murder.

 

[sailingaway]

Abortion is totally different. If you think life begins at conception, that is the end of the question. You are talking about a 'choice' to murder.

Here, I think government should just stay out of it all together.

 

[ElCount]

That's simply not true. He supports a complete ban on abortion at the state level, but just doesn't support a federal ban because he believes it would be unconstitutional. Also, if you read some of his writings reading the separation of church and state, he's a hardcore social conservative.

like sailingaway said, many people such as myself and Dr. Paul believe abortion is murder, so I don't believe that is a social conservative vs. social liberal argument.

I consider myself socially liberal and am against abortion as well but I don't support a federal ban either, I think abortion ought to be punishable and regulated by the states like murder, assault, rape etc...

Full disclosure, I'm using the terms "social conservative" and "social liberal" in the context of believing you ought to use the government to enforce these values, not simply just practicing traditions, engaging in activity, or expressing beliefs in your personal life.

 

[devil21]

Im wondering what the source is? I googled and only got more links to this particular website. Does anybody have an official source for this statement?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes!!!!!!

This has been what was missing in Ron Paul 2008...HIS CONSERVATISM!!!

Hopefully we have learned from Rand's campaign!

The spark behind Ron's popularity in 2007/08 (especially the strength of the support in younger Americans) was that he talked up his libertarian cred. If he continues down the social conservative path, he may win the Republican battle, but the libertarian war will be lost in this generation.

If you think there are droves of young people pining for a social conservative, you're out of your mind.

For my own views on DOMA:

Make it so that ALL marriage is not federally recognized, or strike the definition of man/woman. To support the bill as is is to support government imposing morality on individuals - the very definition of the nanny state. Also, to support the allowance of over 1,000 federal benefits granted to married heterosexuals that are denied married homosexuals is a farce, and a prime example of special interest.

 

[Kludge]

DOMA protects homophobics, and states' "right" to pick and choose which relationships will be granted marriage recognition with tax/SS benefits tied to. While it does prevent states from having to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, it also invalidates all non-hetero marriages on the federal level. While abolishing gov't recognition of marriage altogether would be preferable - since it exists, there should be no restrictions on which types of human relationships are valid. With all due respect to Ron, his position on this is queer as blazes.

 

[RM918]

Fighting on issues like abortion is not what got him all his support. Every other neocon in the field touts their 'socially conservative' cred as loudly as possible, and him saying the same thing as everyone else won't solve anything. Out soconning the socons can only gain marginal support and bore everyone else.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Fighting on issues like abortion is not what got him all his support. Every other neocon in the field touts their 'socially conservative' cred as loudly as possible, and him saying the same thing as everyone else won't solve anything. Out soconning the socons can only gain marginal support and bore everyone else.

He shouldn't try to out-socon anyone else, rather he should just proclaim his conservative positions more than he did in 08.

There is a little thing called a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY that we need to win before we can claim the presidency.

As Matt Collins posted, some social conservative griups are trying to distort Ron's positions and paint him as "not conservative enough".

We need to head these criticisms off at the pass to get Ron through a Republican primary. Don't listen to the idiots who know nothing about electoral politics who say "screw the conservatives man, we don't need em". Um...yeah we do need a large number of them.

If you want to know how Ron can win in 12, you need to look at how Rand ran in 10. Rand emphasized his social conservatism...and so should Ron, if he wants to win.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand did a lot more than emphasize his social conservatism. He also severely downplayed his foreign policy views, to the point that many were worried he was selling out. If dedicated followers were starting to waver, imagine the average young person who likes Ron hearing that kind of talk from him. The support would vanish overnight.

Ron's foreign policy will eliminate support from the vast majority of social conservatives. Like it or not, there's no way to win those types over. The amount of social conservatives who support Ron's foreign policy are so small in number that it's laughable to pander to them in the hopes of converting them to his cause.

 

[teacherone]

So are you in favor of legalized polygamy? The arguments ("consenting adults"; "not hurting anyone") for both gay marriage and polygamy are basically the same thing.

sure.

why not?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand did a lot more than emphasize his social conservatism. He also severely downplayed his foreign policy views, to the point that many were worried he was selling out. If dedicated followers were starting to waver, imagine the average young person who likes Ron hearing that kind of talk from him. The support would vanish overnight.

Ron's foreign policy will eliminate support from the vast majority of social conservatives. Like it or not, there's no way to win those types over. The amount of social conservatives who support Ron's foreign policy are so small in number that it's laughable to pander to them in the hopes of converting them to his cause.

Social conservatism is not neoconservatism, I promise man!

I forsee a rising tide of fiscal, social conservatives coming out against nation-building in 12.

 

[erowe1]

WRONG! If gives states the right to ignore SAME SEX marriages ONLY! Read the ACT

Do you think it's the business of the federal government to make states recognize the same sex marriages of other states?

 

[erowe1]

So are you in favor of legalized polygamy? The arguments ("consenting adults"; "not hurting anyone") for both gay marriage and polygamy are basically the same thing.

Polygamy (a.k.a. sexual promiscuity) already is legal. As is gay marriage in every state. You're just not allowed to get a piece of paper from the state telling you that they approve of your relationship.

 

[erowe1]

He shouldn't try to out-socon anyone else,

Yes, he should. And he has the right positions to do that credibly. Every time people say, "He's not a Republican (or conservative, or whatever), he's a libertarian." they're implying that he fails to pass conservative litmus tests on the issues that distinguish libertarians from conservatives (the primary ones being abortion and illegal immigration). In 2008, he was more conservative in precisely those issues than any of the other top-tier candidates were, and he will be again this year.

The big-government position isn't the position of those of us who don't want those people to get those pieces of paper from the government, it's the position of those who do.

 

[erowe1]

Fighting on issues like abortion is not what got him all his support. Every other neocon in the field touts their 'socially conservative' cred as loudly as possible, and him saying the same thing as everyone else won't solve anything. Out soconning the socons can only gain marginal support and bore everyone else.

The neocon candidates in 2008 all had less credible socially conservative credentials than Ron Paul. And the most socially liberal one of the bunch, Rudy Giuliani, was also the only one who explicitly identified himself as a neoconservative. RP didn't tout his social conservatism enough to enjoy the benefits he could have gotten from that.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The big-government position isn't the position of those of us who don't want those people to get those pieces of paper from the government, it's the position of those who do.

Getting the government out of regulating personal lives and out of actively choosing who does and does not get federally recognized benefits is big government?

War is peace, bro.