-5 votes

Confused by the Ron Paul gay marriage stance

Hi Guys,

I'm a bit confused by what I'm seeing on Dr. Paul's "Protect Marriage" issue card. This card seems to suggest that Dr. Paul doesn't support equal rights for gay Americans. Given the wording, this is perhaps some sort of states-rights way to appear to have this socially conservative position - which appears to be typical politician weasel-wording - very a-typical of Dr. Paul. Am I missing something here? Can anyone help me understand this?

Thanks.

You can find the issue card on the Ron Paul 2012 page under the store.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

To repeat "He wants to get the government out of your business!"

Ron Paul DOES believe that FOR HIM, marriage is between a and a woman.

But he feels that he has no right to impose HIS definition on you.

And that you (through the government), have no right to impose yours on him.

AND REMEMBER as president or member of the U.S. Congress, Ron Paul represents a FEDERAL position.

He says that states do have the opportunity (and the 10th Amendment Right) to issue bills to vote on and for the residents of that state to vote for or against.

What the states CAN'T do is pass any law that usurps anyone's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

it is possible for someone who . . .

believes that marriage is intended for the economic protection of a woman as she bears children . . . in a culture where children are valued--

and where marriage was not intended as a 'celebration of sex', though that might be an aspect of it, but as a protection for the young and vulnerable--

not to want to persecute someone who doesn't share that definition--

This is why when *I*, a heterosexual with a strong bias towards marriage being for the purpose of producing and protecting children above all else--

hear Dr. Paul say that government should 'stay out of the bedroom', I am pleased.

I don't want to know what 'other people' are doing--

it's not my business. As long as *I* as a parent can protect my young and vulnerable, what other people do isn't my concern.

Because, however, *I* am not interested in/concerned with what is happening in a bedroom somewhere outside my home that doesn't involve those over whom I have a responsibility--

doesn't mean I want to hear about it.

This is the definition of privacy; others don't hear about it.

!

This is also a fairly pure libertarian perspective. Because *I* think other people should be able to make their own choices doesn't mean I 'approve' in a moral sense of what they might choose.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

To answer to your concerns

To answer to your concerns about the "a-typical" wording of the card, I do recall seeing it and will add that I think in SOME of Paul's social conservative issues, he does very subtly word it so that your average Christian do-gooder type will read it a certain way. While it's not quite pandering, I find no wrong in it. Those cards are designed to talk to that person. Just like you would talk to your grandma about a similar issue.

my diy adventure blog: dickdoesit.blogpsot.com

He wants to get the government out of your business!

Fundamentally, he believes the government should be out of the business of defining marriage or issuing marriage licenses. He also recognizes the Federal Government has no power granted by the Constitution to make laws regarding marriage.

The marriage issue must be handled by the States and by the People.

"He wants to get the

"He wants to get the government out of your business!"

Yes, I would add that the main point in my view is that NO GOVERNMENT (including state) should be involved in contracts between free people EXCEPT to uphold them if it concerns life, liberty and property.This has no bearing upon my personal opinions.

"Give me Liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry

You can't legislate morality...

Interviewer: How would your faith shape the way you approach social issues, such as same-sex marriage?

Ron Paul: Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament. I think it should be biblical, and politically I don't like to fight with people who disagree with me, as long as they don't force their views on me. So for that reason, I think the real solution to some of this argument is to have less government, rather than government dictating and forcing understanding on different people. I don't think much can be achieved. As I mentioned in my talk, Christ doesn't come and beg and plead for more laws. He pleads for more morality, and I think that's very important.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Perfect

The above is a great quote.

He has also commented to the effect that his understanding of biology from his medical training gives him a different view of what it means to be "gay." I took this to mean that he realizes that this is not simply a moral issue, but has a physiological component.

It helps to remember why we have marriage licences: to prevent the races intermarrying. That was a bad reason to involve the government and nothing good has come from it, since.

Before that, it was a religious ceremony or contract, and had nothing to do with government.

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

Interesting

Can you provide an article discussing marriage licenses orginally being used to prevent inter-racial marriage? I'd like to read more about that.

had a long argument in another forum on this...

14th amendment: "..No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Plain reading of this reveals its purpose: Every citizen is a full citizen - no partial credit. Blacks are citizens, so they get a vote, they are counted for representation, they are entitled to due process. Pretty simple.

*Courts* have subsequently used it to "incorporate" specific rights found in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The OP question here about letting states decide vs. using courts to incorporate rights to the states is EXACTLY THE SAME discussion whether the issue is abortion or gay rights or drug prohibition. Exactly the same.

Ron's constitutionally conservative position is that the court's incorporation actions have been yet another example of Federal Overreach - overriding state sovereignty unnecessarily. He trusts the States to protect the rights of citizens without federal coercion. He implicitly rejects the principle of incorporation (although I don't think I've seen him explicitly reject it - just explicitly champion state sovereignty).

supporting argument (mine):
If the point is to extend the Bill of Rights (BOR) so that states abide by them, the correct approach is to amend the US constitution so that any member state must provide BOR protections in their constitutions in order to gain statehood. Letting the issue dribble and drabble through the courts over the course of 100 years of ad hoc litigation is hardly an effective way to protect rights. Note that the Supreme Court has always stopped short of just proclaiming that the entire BOR applies to the states. Even they recognize that as overreach. Note also that the 14th was never interpreted to prevent gender discrimination - a pretty obvious application of incorporation - since the 14th wasn't written or initially read to provide incorporated protection... that concept came much later.

Ron further points out that the horrors of the past would not return, should the states properly exercise their sovereignty. No state would legalize slavery, given the opportunity (and even rejecting incorporation would not give them the opportunity - that would require repealing the 13th).

I say this is the ideal position on all of these. No matter which side you favor on these particular questions, state sovereignty lets you win the point. Californians can have their marijuana. Utahnians can have their dry state. Massachussettsans (?) can have their state-sanctioned gay marriage. Utahnians can have their plural marriages (another fun subject!). Iowans can make their strict marriage definition. New Yorkers can have abortion clinics. Oklahomans can outlaw the morning after pill. Everybody wins. Federal restraint is exercised. Liberty wins. Choice wins.

Hope this helps.

I'm voting for Peace.

"Plain reading of this

"Plain reading of this reveals its purpose: Every citizen is a full citizen - no partial credit. Blacks are citizens, so they get a vote, they are counted for representation, they are entitled to due process. Pretty simple."

I think we disagree on the plain reading, especially since the latter half applies to "no person" not just no citizens. Life, liberty, and property are guaranteed to all residents. This includes due process and equal protection.

*Courts* have subsequently used it to "incorporate" specific rights found in the Bill of Rights to the states.

"The OP question here about letting states decide vs. using courts to incorporate rights to the states is EXACTLY THE SAME discussion whether the issue is abortion or gay rights or drug prohibition."

Not quite. Under the 14th, you can't allow something that restricts liberty, like drug prohibition or banning gay marriage. Abortion only could be universally banned because it is the life vs. liberty argument.

"He implicitly rejects the principle of incorporation (although I don't think I've seen him explicitly reject it - just explicitly champion state sovereignty)."

He's free to reject it; however, as a Congressman, and definitely as a President, he is bound to the rulings of the court, which has completely embraced incorporation.

"Note that the Supreme Court has always stopped short of just proclaiming that the entire BOR applies to the states. Even they recognize that as overreach. Note also that the 14th was never interpreted to prevent gender discrimination - a pretty obvious application of incorporation - since the 14th wasn't written or initially read to provide incorporated protection... that concept came much later."

Seward: "The 14th amendment means to apply the second through eighth amendments to state governments."

Bingham and Rgers: "Congress shall have power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure all persons in every state full protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property; and to all citizens of the United States in every State the same immunities and also equal political rights and privileges"

Benjamin Brown: "...so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument"

Nate Banks: "the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the constitutional right to bear arms."

Donnely: "that Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation all the guarantees of the Constitution"

Bingham: "this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States."

Woolbridge: "arm the Congress ... with the power to enforce this bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today"

Bill: "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."

Stevens:

"are all asserted, in some form or another, in our DECLARATION or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This Amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States."

Thayer: "simply brings into the Constitution what is found in the bill of rights of every State," and that "it is but incorporating in the Constitution of the United States the principle of the civil rights bill which has lately become a law."

Lawrence: "It has never been deemed necessary to enact in any constitution or law that citizens should have the right to life or liberty or the right to acquire property. These rights are recognized by the Constitution as existing anterior to and independently of all laws and all constitutions. Without further authority I may assume, then, that there are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inherent, and of which a State cannot constitutionally deprive him. But not only are these rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may be possessed and enjoyed are equally so."

There are many other quotes about the 1st, 2nd, 4, and fifth amendments being used against the states with this bill.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ron Paul

considers gay marriage a 1st amendment issue. He respects the constitution.

Simple... do away with the IRS and all other hand out programs!

Once that is out of the way, then the Fed will have no more say in granting so called privileges or benefits or tax deductions, etc.

When the government is out of the picture, I have no doubt most of the issue will disappear. Then it is entirely up to the people in each state to make their own laws on the matter!

Most of the government interference in marriage is a matter of privilege and handouts! If that is gone, there is little more incentive for the FEDs or the states to claim license jurisdiction over marriages! End of issue... everyone can go to their church and take their belief issues or contrary opinions to the elders... if in fact they care about church at all!

Leave the marriage issues with the family and the church where it originated! Problem solved!

Anyone can make a contract and fight out it's meaning in civil court, if they are excited about that kind of fight. However, all people should expect no more handouts stolen from your neighbors by government. Go to the charitable organizations for that!

Ron Paul doesn't think the

Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should have any part in deciding the role of marriage. "Marriage is a religious institution, not a government institution."

Should the Federal Government not protect individuals

from state-sanctioned discrimination?

If we left everything up to the states wouldn't we still have slavery?

Does the 14th amendment not protect me from being treated differently under the law because I'm gay?

Is it right that we still have 2nd class citizens in America in 2011?

The 14th Amendment does NOT protect you

regarding this issue.
It has nothing to do with it.

Licensing inherently requires discrimination based on sets of rules.
Some people WILL be denied, by definition of licensing.

There are NO "rights" being denied. And there are certainly no Constitutionally protected rights being denied, that's for sure.

So, you're pissing up a rope.
How about getting back to important matters at hand now?

I agree..

I agree..

My Life and being treated Equal are important to me BigT

And there are plenty of rights being denied here, luckily maybe not for you BigT, but they're being denied to me.

I support Ron Paul but I disagree on this being a state matter.

Civil Rights are not state matters IMO, especially when rights are being denied out of long held RELIGIOUS beliefs.

The fact that the government

The fact that the government grants "special rights" to heterosexuals and not homosexuals in this matter (marriage) is enough to convince me that the federal government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. If it doesn't treat everyone equally, then it isn't allowed. Remember, "all men are created equal."

So I agree with the statement that homosexuals should be treated equally. But to FORCE everyone to be "equal" is not allowed. The only legitimate solution is to not recognize marriage from the federal government's viewpoint. Therefore, everyone is treated equally and no one is being "forced" to be equal (from their perspectives).

I don't know if that makes perfect sense, but it would solve all sides of the problem.

my diy adventure blog: dickdoesit.blogpsot.com

Well then you are going to have to look in a different direction

because you don't have a leg to stand on with your current position.

And your last line exposes your agenda.

Here's a hint.
Organize a movement to eliminate licensing law, beginning with the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917, and also the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917, As Amended in 1933.

A libertarian would push for a movement that eliminates licensing, and gets gov't out of the marriage business.
A leftist with a social agenda would try to get into the gov't controlled marriage business, for the purpose of "benefits",and using gov't to force social change the way they want it.
And it seems clear which one you are.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of federal gov't forcing social change on anybody, not even you.
I would support an effort to get the gov't out of marriage totally.
I would NOT support any effort to put more pigs at the gov't trough.

your argument is that Im a leftist?! hahaha OK "BigT"

I can see we are not mental equals either. have a nice day

You're right.

We're not.

Yes, but there is a

Yes, but there is a difference beween private and public licensing. Private licensing you can do whatever you want. Public licensing is subject to the 14th amendment, the priv and immunities clause, the EPC, etc.

There is also a difference between discriminating based on sound rules or "ability" vs. discriminating based on creed, race, and gender ("identity"), if that is what you were getting to.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Oh really?

Well how about this one for ya?

We all have a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Yet, the states license people to be able to carry their hardware.
And it holds up in court.

If you want to remove that stuff, then you have to eliminate licensing law.
I don't necessarily agree with these infringements, but it is NOT something that the president is going to "decree" that it is over.

Well the court is wrong. It

Well the court is wrong. It is very interesting on how the court has changed. When the 14th amendment was being debated on, practically everyone agreed that the right to bear arms was a right that the states could NOT infringe upon...they were clear that if anything would be incorporated against the states, it would be this and the fifth amendment. The notion being that an armed citizenry scares the government into not violating other rights.

However, as time passed, the court has kind of switched this position, starting in the late 30s. Now they have begun to question whether the provisions of the BOR are actually fundamental rights, even though the 14th amendment strongly suggests they are (with the framers explicitly saying so).

As weapons have gotten more sophisticated, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is not fundamental right; the right to defense is. Therefore, you have a right to bear certain arms uninfringed, and certain weapons do not fall under that right. I would disagree with that, but I am not on the court.

Furthermore, as certain guns have fallen under this new ruling, more guns are following. Also, while previous rulings had to do with incorporation of the 2nd amendment, now the nature itself is being questioned, allowing the federal government to pass laws restricting access to firearms.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

And the way that was done

was via the Trading With the Enemy Act Of 1917, and the Trading With The Enemy Act Of 1917, As Amended In 1933.

I also disagree with the court on the RKBA issue, but we have what we have.
And the same applies to the gay marriage issue.
If we can't escape the licensing for a guaranteed Constitutional right that is there is black and white in the BOR, then good luck trying to extrapolate some social issue into a "right" by trying to tie it to the 14th.

And as I mentioned in another post, the libertarian view would be to eliminate these thigs to get the gov't out of the marriage business, and all other licensing.
Anyone who is promoting the inclusion of yet another special interest group at the gov't trough is not coming from a liberty viewpoint.

Well said!

Well said!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Thank you Dr.NO.

Thank you Dr.NO.

Where in the Constitution

Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to make laws regarding marriage?

Nowhere

Nowhere, but despite it’s euphemistic title DOMA actually keeps the federal government OUT of marriage. That is why Dr. Paul supported it – to keep the federal government from being used to impose marriage policy on the states in any direction.

DOMA does not impose anything upon the states. It does not tell the states how to define marriage. It does not prevent same-sex, polygamous, or any form of marriage.It does not tell the states what they must or must not recognize.

What the DOMA does is specifically iterate (Section 2) that marriage is a jurisdiction of the states and that the federal government may not be used to force any state to give effect to the decisions of any other state regarding same sex marriage. The DOMA effectively says the federal government will not get involved. So the federal courts will not be used for to force states to adopt any form of marriage policy recognized by another.

As far as the definition of marriage goes, DOMA imposes no definition of marriage on any state. The definition clause (Section 3), only defines marriage solely for purposes of the federal government such as federal taxes and immigration provisions, etc. Same-sex or polygamous marriage advocates can take issue with this for policy reasons, but not because it infringers state sovereignty because this definition dictates nothing to the states. States may still enact or define marriage as they see fit including polygamous, or same-sex or no state sanctioning or involvement marriage at all if they choose.

So DOMA, a law that solely applies to the federal government and specifically keeps the federal government out of state marriage issues and disputes, conforms to the Constitution in that marriage as not an enumerated power of the federal government.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

'

'

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl