To settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on Gay Marriage...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I remembered this video for the longest time as I had stumbled across it on youtube but had failed to bookmark it. I mentioned it repeatedly as the debate on the critical differences between Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were revealed. Someone dug this up and put it in another thread, but I feel it deserves to be put in it's own thread for the sake of finally putting this matter to rest as far as the position of Ron Paul and therefore the movement that follows him is on this issue. I remembered this video because it was the final word that told me that I would support him. The video is to the right of the article.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70276/ron_paul_comes_out_for_marriage_equality/

JS - Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?


RP - Sure.


JS - The state says we believe in this...


RP - Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want;

May the notion that Ron Paul is a theocrat who believes in any church overriding the civil liberties of the individual rest in peace.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

 

[Brassmouth]

Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

Did you even read the OP?

Thanks for settling this, Neil. I'm sure the theocrats and other social authoritarians on these boards will be disappointed.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Did you even read the OP?

Thanks for settling this, Neil. I'm sure the theocrats and other social authoritarians on these boards will be disappointed.

I am sure they will vehemantly deny it too. Ron goes on to point out that they should not be able to push their relationship on anyone else, but makes it clear that he has no right to tell them what to do. And that is the critical point. I still remember my long fights with my friends about this, and how they would pull the "But Ron Paul endorses him! Are you going to go against Ron Paul!"

And now I have the proof as to why I felt that this position of Chuck Baldwin's was in no way compatible with the feelings of Ron Paul.

 

[Ozwest]

Let it be...

 

[Ozwest]

Why bother about others sex lives?

 

[Sandra]

Why did you create another thread for the same thing?

 

[Ozwest]

Why did you create another thread for the same thing?

What me? I created no such thread.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul

Attempts to get government recognition of non-traditional marriages are exactly that- an imposition of and an expectation that the entire society recognize their marriage in every sense of the word, whether you agree or disagree with all of the legal ramifications that have sprung up in the century or so of gov't getting involved in the thing in the first place.

Ideally at the Federal level we clearly uphold that it is not a Federal matter; ideally at the state level we work together toward that same end. Ideally there is no expectation of either a state blessing or a state frown on relationships adults choose to enter into. Not the state's business at all.

All of the national disarray over the issue springs directly from people on both sides of the issue expecting and wishing for a gov't ruling on the matter one way or another, on one level or another. The disarray dissolves when that expectation dissolves. You can't help but wish and hope for the refreshing non-statist ruling to emerge from a supreme court somewhere on this- a simple, straightforward null ruling stating that it's simply not a matter for gov't jurisdiction, but of course that's quite a pipe dream in an increasingly statist world.

The more practical questions for Dr. Paul personally, since the interviewer in the video allowed him to frame his answer inside an idealistic scenario, would be these- if the statists in Congress forced a vote against that idealistic scenario, and Congress was going to either support or deny Federal recognition of same-sex marraige, which way would he vote or would he abstain from voting completely in order to avoid the statist trap? Same question for the Dr. as a voter if Texas put the question on a state referendum.

 

[Ozwest]

"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul

Attempts to get government recognition of non-traditional marriages are exactly that- an imposition of and an expectation that the entire society recognize their marriage in every sense of the word, whether you agree or disagree with all of the legal ramifications that have sprung up in the century or so of gov't getting involved in the thing in the first place.

Ideally at the Federal level we clearly uphold that it is not a Federal matter; ideally at the state level we work together toward that same end. Ideally there is no expectation of either a state blessing or a state frown on relationships adults choose to enter into. Not the state's business at all.

All of the national disarray over the issue springs directly from people on both sides of the issue expecting and wishing for a gov't ruling on the matter one way or another, on one level or another. The disarray dissolves when that expectation dissolves. You can't help but wish and hope for the refreshing non-statist ruling to emerge from a supreme court somewhere on this- a simple, straightforward null ruling stating that it's simply not a matter for gov't jurisdiction, but of course that's quite a pipe dream in an increasingly statist world.

The more practical questions for Dr. Paul personally, since the interviewer in the video allowed him to frame his answer inside an idealistic scenario, would be these- if the statists in Congress forced a vote against that idealistic scenario, and Congress was going to either support or deny Federal recognition of same-sex marraige, which way would he vote or would he abstain from voting completely in order to avoid the statist trap? Same question for the Dr. as a voter if Texas put the question on a state referendum.

Spoken for truth. Ron Paul is a conservative guy, but he is bored with gay marriage issues, as is the rest of the thinking world.

Get over it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I bet in less than three hours, we have a thread dedicated to settling the "to settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on gay marriage" thread.

 

[tremendoustie]

The government's job is not to define marriage. I'm in CA, and I abstained. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about a homosexual lifestyle -- the question is, what should the government do, and the answer is get their noses out.

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone would be forced to have green houses, or yellow houses, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone should be forced to wear jeans or khakis, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether to force everyone to be hindu or christian, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote selecting which words and phrases, or thoughts, would be permitted by the federal government, would you vote?

No. Bills and politicians do not have to be perfect to be suppored, but there is a difference between being willing to take small steps in order to roll back statism and promote freedom, and being willing to participate in statism to force your own personal beliefs on others.

Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

Agreed. Unless there was a choice of, should the government keep their nose out of marriage?, in which case I would vote and vote yes. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[LibertyEagle]

May the notion that Ron Paul is a theocrat who believes in any church overriding the civil liberties of the individual rest in peace.

Neil, I grant you he was a little confusing on this whole subject. At least he was to me. But, my understanding is that he does not think the state should be involved in marriage at all and that the churches should return to handling marriage, as they once did. So, that does not seem to coincide with what you said so well. But here's the thing, there is no reason why gay churches shouldn't be allowed to marry people, right? If the state was taken out of the equation, they would be able to.

Did anyone else come away from Ron's discussions on this issue with a different take on it, than I?

 

[tremendoustie]

Agreed. Unless there was a choice of, should the government keep their nose out of marriage?, in which case I would vote and vote yes. I won't hold my breath though.

Yeah, not holding my breath. I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine who actually worked on the Obama campaign, where I said something like, "Why do we have to make this a political football? Social conservatives don't want to redefine marriage, and homosexuals want equal rights. Both are quite reasonable for wanting these things, so why not just get government out of it, let them just treat people as individuals, and let people call their relationships whatever they want. We can just respect peoples rights instead of pitting them against each other." And, "I think we do a lot of that, we make politics unnecessarily controversial, because we're always abusing the rights of one person in order to favor the rights of others. If government just let people made their own choices instead of mandating everything, I think most people would be a lot happier.

I think it gave him pause for a second, and I could see the wheels were turning, which was nice to see.

 

[tremendoustie]

Neil, I grant you he was a little confusing on this whole subject. At least he was to me. But, my understanding is that he does not think the state should be involved in marriage at all and that the churches should return to handling marriage, as they once did. So, that does not seem to coincide with what you said so well. But here's the thing, there is no reason why gay churches shouldn't be allowed to marry people, right? If the state was taken out of the equation, they would be able to.

Did anyone else come away from Ron's discussions on this issue with a different take on it, than I?

Yeah, I think anyone could call their relationship what they want. We don't have a government definition of "dating", or "friend", why should we need one for marriage? Marriage, to me, would need to happen in a church, but others are free to think of marriage differently, it's up to them.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I think anyone could call their relationship what they want. We don't have a government definition of "dating", or "friend", why should we need one for marriage? Marriage, to me, would need to happen in a church, but others are free to think of marriage differently, it's up to them.

Agreed.

It's almost like we've become so brainwashed to believe that the government has to be involved in everything and the reality is that they don't.

 

[klamath]

The question is should businesses that grants health care and other benefits to the spouses of their workers be forced by the state to give that coverage to gay people or later down the road poligomists or pedophiles should that life style become acceptable??
I voted against Prop 8 on the principal that we have to start somewhere to get the state out of marriage.

I believe that if RP was asked this question the answer would have been a lot different.

 

[tremendoustie]

Agreed.

It's almost like we've become so brainwashed to believe that the government has to be involved in everything and the reality is that they don't.

Exactly. All's great when the tide of opinion is on my side, and I'm the one forcing my beliefs on others, but then the tide turns, and the power I gave the government is now used to suppress me.

Some of my fellow Christians would do well to remember that. A government that has the power to enforce personal morality will still have that power when the public's definition of morality has changed.

Suppose you believe that government should prohibit drugs, prostitution, or pornography, because while these things do not involve the imposition of force or violence, they're immoral and a corrupting influence on society.

Now, opinion changes, and the Bible is viewed as an anachronistic, superstitious, corrupting influence on society. It does no good to protest for your rights at this point, that you are not committing any violence or fraud, or harming anyone, and that you should be left alone. You already tore that wall down, and you handed them the power to oppress you.

Only God is rightfully the enforcer of morality. The only morality the state can enforce is that of popular opinion. I for one do not want morality as defined by popular opinion enforced at all. And, I'm imperfect, so if I'm honest with myself, my view of morality really shouldn't be enforced in the first place, even if it weren't a slippery slope ...