Ron Paul less friendly to gay marriage than Rand Paul

[jmdrake]

There seems to be this selective amnesia when it comes to Ron Paul. Or rather it's an attempt by some to remake the good doctor into a false image that some would like him to be. Rand Paul is getting attacks by some who claim "Why is Rand against gay marriage? Why can't he support it like is good old dad?" Only....Ron Paul never came out in support of gay marriage. Quite contrary Ron:

1) Said he would have voted for DOMA had he been in congress.

2) Attacked Obama for not defending DOMA.

3) Attacked the Supreme Court for overturning sodomy (gay sex) laws.

4) Introduced legislation to remove sodomy laws and marriage laws from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

By contrast Rand came out and said he would support some kind of civil union legislation. Oh.....but that's not good enough. No, Rand's use of words like "offensive" and "moral crisis" to define gay marriage makes him more anti gay than someone who believes states should have the right to arrest people for gay sex.

I love Ron Paul. I like him as a politician better than Rand. But let's be honest folks. A champion of gay marriage he was not. And Rand taking a position of "I don't agree with said behavior but I think the federal government should be neutral on it" is not at all pandering to Christian conservatives. If it is then they are pretty stupid.

 

[William Tell]

I know, I liked Ron's positions on marriage and states rights more.

 

[PierzStyx]

That is because Ron was a champion of states rights issues and the rule of law.

The reason he said he would have voted for DOMA is because DOMA helped protect the states from the Fedgov forcing a definition of marriage on them while allowing the states to choose their marriage laws. Likewise, laws regarding sex, such as sodomy, are not federal issues, either Supreme Court or Congress. The states alone would have jurisdiction over those if anyone did. His position on state power was well articulated in the last round of primaries against Frothy in reference to abortion; by keeping controversial issues on the state level you promote more freedom for more people to choose and their ability to change laws that are wrong whereas when the fedgov forces one law on everyone then everyone is forced to comply and it is nearly impossible for local movements to change federal law.

 

[orenbus]

"queerer than the blazes"

 

[westkyle]

There seems to be this selective amnesia when it comes to Ron Paul. Or rather it's an attempt by some to remake the good doctor into a false image that some would like him to be. Rand Paul is getting attacks by some who claim "Why is Rand against gay marriage? Why can't he support it like is good old dad?" Only....Ron Paul never came out in support of gay marriage. Quite contrary Ron:

1) Said he would have voted for DOMA had he been in congress.

2) Attacked Obama for not defending DOMA.

3) Attacked the Supreme Court for overturning sodomy (gay sex) laws.

4) Introduced legislation to remove sodomy laws and marriage laws from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

By contrast Rand came out and said he would support some kind of civil union legislation. Oh.....but that's not good enough. No, Rand's use of words like "offensive" and "moral crisis" to define gay marriage makes him more anti gay than someone who believes states should have the right to arrest people for gay sex.

I love Ron Paul. I like him as a politician better than Rand. But let's be honest folks. A champion of gay marriage he was not. And Rand taking a position of "I don't agree with said behavior but I think the federal government should be neutral on it" is not at all pandering to Christian conservatives. If it is then they are pretty stupid.

We didn't need a champion of gay marriage. We needed and received a champion of the constitution. What do gay people want anyways from a piece of paper that says you married from the state anyways? Get married, and get on with your life unless you are arguing about the tax aspect.

 

[orenbus]

 

[jmdrake]

That is because Ron was a champion of states rights issues and the rule of law.

The reason he said he would have voted for DOMA is because DOMA helped protect the states from the Fedgov forcing a definition of marriage on them while allowing the states to choose their marriage laws. Likewise, laws regarding sex, such as sodomy, are not federal issues, either Supreme Court or Congress. The states alone would have jurisdiction over those if anyone did. His position on state power was well articulated in the last round of primaries against Frothy in reference to abortion; by keeping controversial issues on the state level you promote more freedom for more people to choose and their ability to change laws that are wrong whereas when the fedgov forces one law on everyone then everyone is forced to comply and it is nearly impossible for local movements to change federal law.

That's the way we spin it. However there's both the 9th and the 10th amendment. The 9th amendment gives power to the people as opposed to the states.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It is wrong to assume that 10th amendment gives a blank check to states rights when the 9th amendment upholds individual rights and the 10th amendment gives an either or split between the states and the people.

Also the constitution guarantees a Republican form of government.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

What is a republic? Glad you asked.



Laws that single out one group for punishment, as Texas' sodomy law did, violate the principles of a republic. Note that the Texas law only banned anal and oral sex done by gay people. Had it barred all anal and oral sex, justice O'Connor stated that she might have voted to uphold it.

 

[twomp]

We didn't need a champion of gay marriage. We needed and received a champion of the constitution. What do gay people want anyways from a piece of paper that says you married from the state anyways? Get married, and get on with your life unless you are arguing about the tax aspect.

It's not just taxes, there's health care benefits and a whole host of other things that come from having that government sanctioned piece of paper.

 

[jmdrake]

Thank you for posting this. A couple of points.

Video 1: Ron says that he doesn't want to impose his view on marriage on others and doesn't want others imposing their views of marriage on him. So why are some attacking Rand for expressing his personal views? "Oh the moral crisis is those who have a problem with gay marriage." Really? Who made these people the arbiter of what someone else should think?

Video 2: Ron says that part of the reason he supported DOMA is because he didn't want to expand the welfare state even further. And yet when Rand Paul voted against an amendment to expand social security and veteran's benefits to gay spouses some people here attacked him even though that's exactly what Ron said HE would do!

 

[jmdrake]

It's not just taxes, there's health care benefits and a whole host of other things that come from having that government sanctioned piece of paper.

Have you ever noticed that you have more freedom to decide who to put on your car insurance than who to put on your health insurance? It's because of the tax consequences of health insurance! The income tax and the government love of your money is the root of all kinds of evil.

 

[westkyle]

I guess we should get the gov't out of marriage then, eh?

I just wanted to add, that Orenbus's videos of Ron's views are my views as well.

 

[presence]

The government's love of your money
is the root of all kinds of evil.

 

[LawnWake]

With Ron, far more than any other politician, you really have to listen to his reasoning to understand why he voted the way he did. The devil is in the details and his motivation and reasoning for his vote may have differed tremendously from what the name of the bill implied.

I remember there being exceptions, but for the most part, his voting record was solid.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

That's the way we spin it. However there's both the 9th and the 10th amendment. The 9th amendment gives power to the people as opposed to the states.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It is wrong to assume that 10th amendment gives a blank check to states rights when the 9th amendment upholds individual rights and the 10th amendment gives an either or split between the states and the people.

Also the constitution guarantees a Republican form of government.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

What is a republic? Glad you asked.



Laws that single out one group for punishment, as Texas' sodomy law did, violate the principles of a republic. Note that the Texas law only banned anal and oral sex done by gay people. Had it barred all anal and oral sex, justice O'Connor stated that she might have voted to uphold it.

I need to rep you again for this. Remind me later.

 

[jmdrake]

I need to rep you again for this. Remind me later.

LOL. You want to neg rep me for being against sodomy laws? So does that mean you want to put gay people in prison? Okay. Neg rep away.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

LOL. You want to neg rep me for being against sodomy laws? So does that mean you want to put gay people in prison? Okay. Neg rep away.

Try again. You do know what "I approve" means, I assume.

 

[jmdrake]

Try again. You do know what "I approve" means, I assume.

Oh. You said rep. I misread that as neg rep. My bad. Old eyes. :o