Need some help with a same sex marriage reply

Other factors being what is likely to become of this country if one of the other candidates is elected. With all the Democrat candidates, socialism is going to grow by leaps and bounds, resulting in significant tax increases, and likely a bankrupt nation. These tax increases will negate any "Civil Benifits" that the Democrats may (or may not) grant. Or, elect one of the other Republicans, whom obviously will do what they can to make sure same sex marriage does NOT come to pass, and will also wreak havoc upon our country.

Elect Ron Paul, whom does not PERSONLLY believe in same sex marriage, but does believe it is an individual right.

Divide and conquer is a very effective strategy. Consider the consequences of electing any of the other candidates simply reasoned upon one issue. It simply can't be understated, live to fight your fight another day.

In a side note. If people didn't flaunt their sexuality in public, others would be much less offended by it. I've no problem with gays, but when I have to explain to my 7 year old what gay means before I've even gone through the full explaination of reproduction with him, that REALLY pisses me off.

The problem with making it a state issues is that this is a situation where the oft mentioned (and mis-used) "interstate commerce clause" would actually be rightly used. The reasons for a state to legalize marriage are presumably significantly financial in nature, as they deal with medical and estate rights (both also financial).

So, as the law currently works, every state must recognize the marriages of every other state. The possible exception would be if one state did not recognize marriages at all, including marriages within it's own borders. That would be fine. However, the interstate commerce clause is correctly applied to say that if State A is to provide certain marriage rights/penalties to it's citizens, then it must equally provide those same rights/penalties to those who were married in other states but are now residents of state A. There is no "carving out" allowed - and it would be unconstitutional to recognize marriages from some states (say the man-woman states) and not others (gay states).

The result is that if one state gets gay marriage, then effectively everyone has them. Your state may not allow gay marriages directly, but all the couple would need to do is travel to a gay-friendly state, get married there, and come back, and they would be legally married with all the rights/penalties of others in their home state.

In the same way that, say, Indiana can't accept alcohol shipments from Nebraska and Flordia yet ban them from Michigan and Hawaii, you can't pick and choose your marriages either. Continuing the metaphor, there have been states where intrastate alcohol shipments were allowed but interstate shipments were banned (i.e. You can ship alcohol within Indiana but no other state can ship to Indiana, or they have different rules). The supreme court, citing the commerce clause (correctly) has ruled such regulation unconstitutional. They amount to tariffs on other states.

In this case, you either have marriage in your state, and accept the marriages of other states, or you don't have them at all.

And so, the bottom line is that marriage, a religious institution, should not be regulated by the government at all. The behavior of consenting adults is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I suspect it's not within the constitutional bounds of any of the 50 state constitutions either.

Thus, *marriage* is the state issue, *gay marriage* is just a different type of marriage, which is currently not recognized by any of the 50 states. If one did, then anyone could take advantage of it. The federal government's role is one of maintaining fairness in the commerce between the states, and thus insuring that if a state has marriage, they recognize marriages of the other states.

The hubbub about passing some amendment for or against gay marriage at the federal level is a misguided attempt by both sides to apply federal power where there is no federal jurisdiction.

Ron Paul, of course, supports no such amendment either way, because the constitution does not give such power to the federal government. Characterizing this as a "Ron Paul is against a constitutional right to have gay marriage" is unfair, because he's also against the perceived opposite amendment. It's the linkage of federal and marriage he's opposed to, gay or not.

There is no such thing as Same Sex Marriage. The definition of marriage is a man and a woman entering into a lifelong covenant. Anything else isn't marriage.

Now, why do we always seem to minor on the majors, and major on the minors?

I agree that with Ron Paul's position that the state should not be in the marriage business.

I find the discussion of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be intellectually absurd and Constitutionally misguided. I am outraged not because I am a “Gay Atheist Democrat” with a bone to pick with American, but rather as “Patriotic Heterosexual American” who loves both liberty and his Country.

The Constitution was meant to define the outer limits of governmental power, not to define the limits of individual liberty.

The framer’s got it right the first time. The 9th Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The 10th Amendment states, “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.”

In other words, the “Bill of Rights” is not a positive list where all rights not expressly granted by government to the people are forbidden. The framers intended just the opposite. All rights not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

I feel Ron Paul's stance on Gay marriage is consistent with the original intent of the framer’s of the constitution. Government shouldn’t be defining marriage at all. America is a Constitutional Republic not a Theocracy. However, the 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The church is free to define the rules of marriage before God, and the state has no right to force the church to recognize a gay marriage. In much the same way, the State has no right to force their definition of marriage on the Individual.

Marriage is a private contract between private citizens, and individuals should be free to contract with who they like. People do not get their rights as virtue of being part of a group. We do not derive our rights from our sexual preference, race, or gender. People get rights naturally as individuals from their creator; not from government permission.

Although I am not gay myself, my wife has a brother and a sister who are both gay. When talking to them about Ron Paul, the issue of gay marriage always comes up, so I've put a fair amount of thought into it.

Basically, because marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, IT IS A STATE ISSUE whether people like that fact or not. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, that fact will not change, regardless of how many federal judges or federal legislators thing they can do otherwise. Issues where people are attempting to legislate their version of morality should always be deferred to the state and local governments to give the people in those areas as much power in the decision-making process as possible. Legislating those kinds of issues at the Federal level is almost always a bad idea, because however it's decided, it's always a sword that cuts both ways and divides people.

As an example with a bit less emotion and morality attached to it, I use this: I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Utah. There are several other states that will also recognize my Utah-issued permit and will allow me to carry a concealed weapon within their borders as well. There are other states, however, that won't recognize my permit, and many of those states won't issue permits at all. While I may believe that my civil liberties are being infringed upon anywhere I'm not allowed to carry my weapon, it's the right of the state - and by extension the right of the people in that state - to make decisions like that. That's why I will always choose to live in areas that have enough like-minded people to ensure that my rights aren't infringed, and when I visit elsewhere, I practice the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" philosophy.

Gay marriage should, and must, work in the same way. It is a state's right to recognize or not recognize a union of two same-sex individuals or to define marriage as they see fit. Although I don't think it would ever happen, I think it's a state's right not to recognize my traditional marriage unless they choose to, since really only the state that issues the license is actually compelled to recognize it. Is it a sticky, controversial issue without a great answer? Absolutely, but short of forming some new bureaucracy, i.e. "The Federal Department of Marriage and Civil Unions" that issues federal marriage licenses and has say over who gets to be with whom, the best answer is to leave it with the states where it belongs.

Here's how I would handle it. First he is asking the federal government to do what it has no authority to do that is preside over marriage traditional or gay. Ron Paul's stance is correct in that the states are sovereign and it is their right via the 10 th amendment.

That does in fact give gays more freedom and in many cases it will probably give them the freedom to marry. He is correct in that some states will not however gays can vote with their feet and move to states that do allow it.

This illustrates another problem and that is socialism vs freedom. His requirement that the federal government mandate something in all states not within its authority results in a 50/50 chance they will mandate in the way he would like or just the opposite. In his case it is the opposite and not likely to change anytime soon. He also wrongly assumes President Ron Paul could change it his beef is with the congress and the courts.

By concentrating the authority in a central government even though it is unconstitutional we are preventing any gays from having the right. Since this is a controversial subject there is no one answer that will please everyone either the gays will be angry or those opposed will be angry this is the downside to socialism and democracy (mob rules)

However in a constitutional republic where the states are sovereign you have diversity and so you have states that allow it and those that don't allowing folks on opposite sides of the issue a maximum freedom of choice within this diversity without one side forcing its views entirely on the other and the ability to vote with their feet if they so desire.

In conclusion which would he prefer? The current top down rule that is preventing him from getting what he wants or at least the ability of the states to decide for themselves which will result in maximum freedom for the most people within the diversity of views on the matter? Or on other words his all or nothing view is resulting in nothing for him and his fellow gays.

--------------------------------------------------------
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. Samuel Adams

Marriage is a religious ceremony, the government should have no role in our personal unions. Even the State shouldn't get involved. Leave it to the Church, not the government.
Your Church doesn't want to accept Gay marriage?
Go to another church, the demand will create one.

If this is more about tax write offs think about the ultimate one, NO INCOME TAX.

Against Federal Gay Marriage act?
He's against ANY government involvement in American's bedrooms.

I think it's the simple fact that he is a Republican that people get the kneejerk reaction.