3 votes

Ron Paul as president wouldn't involve Feds in marriage!

That's right. He is married, so obviously he thinks it is a good choice for himself, but he doesn't think that the government has any role in preserving marriage in anyway, shape or form.

He lays it out perfectly here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsZfSJ3V4bc at 8:10

The government, the state, should have no role in marriage, in family, etc.

I support Ron Paul because he doesn't want the government to tell me who I can and can't marry and how I should live my life!

*Moderator edit:
Changed title from "doesn't support" to "wouldn't involve Feds." He clearly "supports" marriage.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For the most part he is right.

The federal goverment doesnt handle marriages nor should they .State goverments handle marriage. What are you saying you want to give our marriages back to the federal gov? All Ron is saying he wants to keep marriage at the state level. Thats why I hate that she-male Ann Coulter who is trying destort RPs policies on marriage.

Why should any government

Why should any government federal, state or local be involved with marriage?

I agree they should not.

Church recognized marriages and common law contracts are all we need.

I think the origin of marriage licenses was to force people to be tested for venereal disease before they got married, and it eventually just was considered normal instead of an intrusion on freedom.

Marriage is between the parties involved and one of those parties is not the State or the federal government, else I will invite bureaucrats to show up and help me with my next honey-do list.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I'm trying to understand your

I'm trying to understand your position.

So if I and another person decide we want to declare our union between our God then the state have nothing to do with that, right?

and while we have the relationship the state is in no way involved in terms of taxes, etc., right?

and finally

if I decide I no longer want to have such a relationship with this person than the state is not involved through any laws or divorce courts, right?

Otherwise, the state is very much involved in marriage in a number of ways even if marriage certificates don't get issued.

Why are churches tax-exempt?

I'm no more in favor of taxes than anyone, but I've never understood tax-exempt status as applied to churches. Isn't favoring religious organizations with tax law just another unconstitutional and unholy mix of church and state?

I'll tell you why.. The worst

I'll tell you why.. The worst enemy to Government bent on control is to have pastors telling their congregations to follow God and not man. If we had the majority of our pastors preach the bible and not the crap that they do, Most of the idiots elected to Washington DC would not be there. By giving them tax exempt status the government controls the discussion in the church.

Tax exempt status to churches is a scam

But not for the reason you might think. The first Amendment to the Constitution says you cannot tax churches. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" If congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then what law or what tax law are the churches subject to? The answer - no law or no tax!!! This gets a little tricky, because most churches have registered their church with the government and created a corporation, known as a 501C3 corp. Unknowingly they have sold their soul and are now subject to what the government dictates, in exchange for a "tax exempt status" they already had. Registering something with the government turns ownership over to the government. - that means your car, your marriage, your church etc... Listen to this radio message, it is the best explanation I have heard explaining church and tax exempt status. (The first 6 minutes is a food commercial so be patient,)
http://www.truthradio.com/Audio/Massad501C3.mp3

Which Tax?

Churches exercise speech, often don't charge admission, collect donations, give to the needy, etc.

Which activity is taxable?

Should they pay sales tax on rummage sales? Do you know anyone who does?

I've taken an oath not to initiate force against anyone, and doing so just because the rest of us have to pay, is no excuse.

Too wrongs don't make a right.

I like Ron Paul's Tax Free Tips idea because if it passed, then everyone else would want to be tax free, too. Or, maybe they'd advocate repeal because they don't think it's fair.

Which one do you really favor?

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I happened to come across

I happened to come across this on the web:
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/articles/taxexempt...

To be blunt, I believe churches should not be given a free ride, same as any other organization or business. I'd favor no taxes for everyone, but good luck with that ever happening.

You said: "I've taken an oath not to initiate force against anyone, and doing so just because the rest of us have to pay, is no excuse."

That's a weak defense. Just because it's been done this way for years or even centuries doesn't make it right. Churches should not receive benefits above and beyond those of any other, as it is essentially a violation of the establishment clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Um....

Not sure how letting people keep their own money is "giving them a free ride...". To be honest, NO ONE should be paying taxes.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt

That is why I said exactly

That is why I said exactly that... "I'd favor no taxes for everyone, but good luck with that ever happening."

I attempt to be a realist, because being a realist means you understand that this world may never be exactly to your liking.

Voluntary - Mandatory

I've noticed that the income tax has caused a shift of responsibility for things like morality, charity, and values, from church to state. I think because people feel they were forced to pay, so they ask government to use the money for those things.

Voters should be careful what they ask for, and insist that morality, charity, and values should all be taught and provided by churches and other voluntary organizations, in a free market with no government-mandated favoritism.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Government's involvement in

Government's involvement in private agreements should be limited to adjudicating breach of contract, and only when one of the parties has standing to bring suit and does so, provided that contract allows for judicial remedy.

So...

NO MORE STUPID SAME SEX MARRIAGE BANS!!!! YEAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

odessa, texas?

odessa, russia?

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

Here is his next soundbite

Freedom For All Vote Ron Paul
2012

"The more you understand everything, the more you can understand anything."
PDV

Give me Liberty

I prefer the word "Liberty." The Germanic etymology of the word "freedom" implies that it is something to be granted or denied by a clan. "Freedom" and "friend" have the same origin. A "freeman" or "freedman" is one who is in with the in-crowd. He has friends in high places. It is like in the Mafia, when one made guy introduces another made guy to someone as "a friend of ours."

"Liberty" has a Latin origin, and simply means the state of doing as one pleases. The same Latin word was an informal noun for a child, as "kid" (a baby goat) is in modern English.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Ok

Liberty For All Vote Ron Paul !! hows that

"The more you understand everything, the more you can understand anything."
PDV

very good

can I use that?

Right on!!

Right on!!

the current state of marriage

the current state of marriage is a perfect metaphor for the way our country works now.

its the carrot & stick method really, "if you do this, we'll give you that"

and the stick part,, well thats how the Federal government "coerces" the states.. "if you don't pass those housing codes we'll cut your DOT funding"

its the same old formula, if we could find a simple counter formula I bet it could be applied country wide to great effect.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

I'm on a marriage strike

I don't need to get married...

...to have sexual relations;
...to produce and raise children;
...to open a joint bank account;
...to jointly own property;
...to grant power of attorney;
...to bequeath my assets;
...to cohabit;
...to have a loving, committed, monogamous relationship;
...to share a surname;
...to be united in the eyes of my creator.

I do need to get married...

...to lose half my assets;
...to pay alimony;
...to stay in a dysfunctional relationship;
...to satisfy emotionally insecure social parasites;
...to involve the government in my relationship;
...to pay a marriage tax penalty.

What Gene Simmons has works very well.

interesting stuff

I'm a Christian, not an atheist. But from an atheist perspective, Evil Warloard's "marriage strike" is pretty much spot on correct. I've been wondering this about gay couples the last few years, as well. "If you're not religious, why the hell do you want to get married anyway?"

I personally plan to get just married in a church and by the church, and not register/notify/involve the government at all.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt

Civil marriage is satanism

It's not that I'm against marriage. I'm against civil marriage.

There's nothing wrong with two people bowing down before their creator and having a religious ceremony to consecrate a union.

When two people bow down before the state, however, then it becomes a civil marriage and that is a marriage consecrated solely by Satan. I abjectly refuse to recognize any civil marriage whatsoever for that very reason!

LOL.... that's perfect! Too

LOL.... that's perfect! Too true and funny as hell :)

www.reverbnation.com/docholladaymusic

Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

Well there you go

Well there you go

Marriage is a religious thing ... not a government thing

Government should not be in the business of religion.

A marriage license is

A marriage license is rendering unto Caesar what belongs to God.

I'm just waiting for a person to challenge

the government's involvement in marriage matters on constitutional grounds. It should go to the Supreme Court... where they'd basically chicken out, same as with the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit from years ago.

It's really neither. The Church got involved in marriage back

in the day when it had much more clout in government. It was simply the means of the day to control people.

Truly, it is a contract. And our governments are required by their several constitutions not to impair the obligation of contracts.

In short, two people can contract a marriage arrangement, and not only can the government not stop you, they have to enforce the terms.

If only people would take this approach instead of asking government permission to do what they already have the right to do.