8 votes

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on Gay Marriage

I would like to start by saying I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. Since I learned about him in college in 2007, I have actively promoted his ideals and campaigned on his behalf. I love the movement he has created. Rand has been on my radar for a few years now, and it is clear that he is not his father, though he is still, I believe, dedicated to limited government and peace.

This movement is coming to a crossroads. Dr. Pauls message has spread so far that it now encompasses a large group of people with very different personal views. One thing we all share, however, is the idea of personal liberty and freedom. We embrace the first amendment wholeheartedly and wish to repeal oppressive government agencies that tell us what we can and can't do. However, there is a very sharp division in our ranks. Those who support homosexual marriage, and those who do not.

It is clear what Dr. Paul's position is on this subject; The federal government shouldn't be involved AT ALL and the right to decide policy should be left up to the individual states; and even then, it is his belief STILL that the government(yes the state government) should not be involved in the marriage business because of the intrisic problems that come with government intervention. Who should be the guiding force behind whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

As Dr. Paul himself has said, that decision should be left up to the particular religious institution.

Now lets take it a step further. What does our favorite document, the constitution, say on the subject?

1) The 1st Amendment states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principles then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union

2) The 14th Amendment states; No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc, then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens.

So, the government is bound by the constitution to either;

1) Butt out of marriage entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any 2 consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.


2) Keep a stake in regulating marriage, and lift the restrictions so as to not be in conflict with the 14th amendment

Now, I'll play devils advocate and agree that government still needs to be part of the marriage equation;

It is my understanding that folks have a problem with civil unions because they can be used for non-sexual or non-romantic engagements. If me and a friend are living together, why should we not get a civil union for lower taxes, health benefits, etc.?

The simple answer is that this problem exists even now, without same-sex unions. Why don't I and a female friend get together now and get married simply for the benefits? Said female friend and I could still exploit the system in the exact same way. And many do. How about when people get married just to get a green card? Or for inheritence?

Lets face it, government involved in marriage is just a bad idea all around. Leave it to the religious institutions where it belongs.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN is a change in the rhetoric of our movement. We, as a community, have bought into the MSM argument that we only have 2 choices; Either support government controlled marriage WITHOUT including homosexuals, or support government controlled marriage WITH homosexuals.

We are missing the third option; Ron Paul's option. The government should not be involved in marriage AT ALL. Marriage is, and should remain, a personal decision made by 2 people, and consented on by their particular faith. If you abhor homosexual marriage, don't let it in your church. Work hard to keep it out of your faith. And, in turn, if you agree with homosexual marriage, you can go to a secular church that accepts homosexuals, and tye the knot. No government intervention necessary.

Our country was founded on religious freedom. Lets keep government out of our religion.

(Sorry for the super long post, but I don't want to lose RP supporters over this issue. Feel free to ask any questions or give criticisms, and I will do my best to answer honestly and appropriately)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We should shout this loudly, over and over...

"We are missing the third option; Ron Paul's option. The government should not be involved in marriage AT ALL. Marriage is, and should remain, a personal decision made by 2 people, and consented on by their particular faith. If you abhor homosexual marriage, don't let it in your church. Work hard to keep it out of your faith. And, in turn, if you agree with homosexual marriage, you can go to a secular church that accepts homosexuals, and tye the knot. No government intervention necessary."

Heterosexuals should stop asking the government for permission to marry as well. My husband and I have been married for over 15 years without a marriage license. It's none of their business and they should have no jurisdiction over the matter. The problem, they say, is the children. Well, if people would keep their families intact and in love, the government would lose this argument.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


Liberty means some folks may use their liberty in a way you may not like. It doesn't mean you condone it, it doesn't mean you endorse it. As long as they're not bothering you... live and let live.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Sure, but

The majority of gays are statists - very high concentration in the Democratic Party. I read the other day that gays as an interest bloc (not individual gays) are either the fourth or the fifth largest special interest group for the Democratic Party. That is why Obama relented to gay marriage. They were threatening to withhold money. This is a big money group that tends to go after religion and support other statist policies that are popular with Democrats.

The gay marriage lobby has repeatedly tried to use the Judicial branch to get around representative democracy.

I believe that most gays would want the federal government to mandate that churches or any other private organization that marries people - must marry gays even if they disagree with that practice. The lobby has been very aggressive, even in its use of language to change the culture and write new law.

So, this is as much a battle against statism as it is a battle for liberty. Most gays do not want to keep the government out of marriage. They want the federal government to mandate that private organizations, and indeed all citizens adopt a new legal and moral basis by decree. Same with gay adoption.

If, on the other hand, this were an education and social marketing approach, it would be easier to abide. But it is not. This is a top down, government-centric, cultural Marxist steamroller that all liberty lovers should resist as a matter of principle. Gay libertarians, especially should resist it too.

I am not a religious person. But I believe these are important considerations.

Gays are not statists

like most people, they have probably never even heard the term "statist". They only know that the democratic party is more friendly to them than the republican party. At my state GOP convention, the crowd booed a fellow Republican just because he was gay. The 20 yr old female RP supporter sitting next to me (no doubt her first time at this sort of event) was horrified and started to cry. I dont blame her at all. If I were gay, I would be a Democrat as well. I am sure that many homosexuals (like many democrats in general) have no particular interest in big government and may even be opposed to it. But you cannot expect gays to join a party that is openly hostile to them. As far as lobbying to subvert the 10th amendment is concerned, most gays have probably not investigated the state's rights vs. federal commandeering issue very much and are just eager to get legal recognition any way possible. The great majority of Americans are brainwashed with sound byte stupidity and do not adhere to any sort of coherent philosophy when it comes to constitutional interpretation and liberty. States' rights is a virtually unknown concept now that centralization has, unfortunately, become the status quo. Point is that I certainly do not believe that the gay lobby's tactics have anything to do with the opinions of the average homosexual. Once we eliminate the fascists from the Republican party, i am certain that many types of people - including gays - would give it a second look.

My argument is

the Democratic Party has been completely overrun by statists, and as such if one is a big contributor to that group, he/she is by definition supporting statism. I believe it is a matter of principle. We need to oppose statism more than support homosexuality.

This is from Breitbart regarding Democrat contributors. What the article also does not mention is that within the Progressive pundrity and media class there is also a disproportionate share of gay activists.


One in six top Obama bundlers is gay. Democrats are exploiting gays to advance a statist agenda and gays are exploiting the Democratic Party to advance their agenda.

I am opposed to the gay activist lobby, not gay people individually, because that lobby advocates a cultural Marxist agenda, that has become standard fare among Democrats and especially the Obama administration and the Nancy Pelosi wing in Congress.

At the same time I believe we should be opposing imperialist Christian Literalists in our own ranks because they would use religion in the same way statists would use government to manage individuals.

The common sense middle opposes totalitarianism whether it comes from the state or from religion. There are many gay libertarians. Unfortunately they are minority.

Yes and No

If by, "the Democratic Party has been completely overrun by statists" you mean the active party members and candidates, you're right. Authoritarians seek to rise in party politics to get more power.

If you mean the rank and file registered Democrat voters, you're wrong. Many of them are only Democrats because they're under attack by Republican authoritarian statists. It's self-defense.

This is why we have to be careful about our broad attacks on whole groups: not all members of groups are the same, and in the case of groups they join, it makes a big difference whether they joined seeking to have power over others, or in self-defense.

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

Good post!

As a Latter Day Saint I oppose having the definition of marriage changed to include homosexual relationships. I have even passed petitions in Nevada to have a referendum on an amendment to that state's constitution to define marriage as being ONLY between a one man and one woman. (The amendment passed by the way.)

However, there is no question that the United States federal governent has NO business regulating marriage. And you are also correct that this should compell them to also stop giving special favors to people based on their marital status.

I do not think that the states should be in the marriage business either, but I do ont believe that the 14 th amendment requires that.

Personally, I hope that someday there will be states that would allow a variety of different legal unions, and that people could vote with their feet if they did not like their sTate's laws.

But I would like to see that about MANY issues, not just marriage.

The Virtual Conspiracy

Marriage and the State

[that] states...allow a variety of different legal unions....

What's wrong with marriage being what it was before the State existed, between the people behaving how they interpret marriage? Wouldn't this view be natural and involve God (or whatever high being believed in) more than any other view could?

I recognize before that statement you said states shouldn't be involved in marriage. Why, then, state you hope states would allow unions, a legal activity?


Legal: State (that is, gov't) made.

State: The central entity in an environment. Its members make rules of what's permissible and what's impermissible. Conceptual definition: An externality to the individual whose thinking and acting is applied to individual outside it.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Because I am not an anarchist...

... and because the U.S. constitution DOES and SHOULD allow the states to have differences in their laws.

The same is true with abortion, drugs and many other wedge issues.

Our opponents love to get us arguing over whether we should be living in a Santorum-style society (where the federal government dictates morality for the entire nation) and a utopian anarchy because they know which side that 99% of the voters will choose.

The bottom line is that we should be debating issues like state sanctioned marriage (and every other social issue) at a STATE level.

But if a gay person (thinking that they would not win that debate at the state level) wants to appeal to a federal government to be the final arbiter, then they are no better than the anti-abortionist who wants to win the same way.

The Virtual Conspiracy

I'm all for supporting Doctor Paul

But the racists and homophobes on this site really turn me off.

The reason I thumbed you down is

because you are insulting people based on their opinion. Could there be racists and homophobes on this site? possibly (I haven't seen evidence of it myself) But I think some people have different ideas on what racism/homophobia is....My brother is gay and I love him, but I personally believe marriage is between a man and woman. Im all for equality but to me marriage is so precious. I think it should be up to the states though. That is NO homophobia based on my interpretation of marriage. I support my brother and his partner and am a little embarrassed by Rand's statement. On Racism, Im sure most political websites have a few posters somewhere, its just inevitable from what I've seen. Obama's own website is pretty racist in my opinion. He has a section labeled "African Americans for Obama". Can you imagine if Ron Paul had a "European Americans for Ron Paul" section? I'm incredibly offended that Obama would put something like that on his own campaign site. But thats my OPINION. Others may see it differently or interpret it differently.

haha you got downvoted- weird

pretty reasonable statement I thought. Wonder what would have happened if instead you had said; "But the racists and homophobes on this site really turn me ON."
I didn't take it for a second that you were saying that you were pulling your support for Ron Paul based on what some supporters think. People are funny sometimes : )

I have to agree with dr. paul...

This really should not be our (americans )main concern though... if the best we can do is put it back to the states that would be great! This way each state can vote on if they want to allow gay marriage, abortions, drugs,and education.. each state really does have extremely different opinions on what they believe should be legal.

somewhat valid -yet I respectfully disagree

one of our founding documents states that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights as given by a Creator. Said Creator of which was fore ascribed to, being of the Judeo-Christrian ilk as further
delineated in the Bible. It is here that the founders found the blueprint for a just and civil society ie. republic, as well as mans obligatorial ordering of reproduction--- nuff said.

either the constitution is a living doc /or its original intent is still intact/can't have both, but what do I know

LOve the R3volution

The Treaty of Tripoli

submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.....

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Mr. Adams

states his personal opinion and as such is devoid of the absolute truths as alluded to in the founding documents ie. Creator(providence)
what his statements further illustrates is the fact of his being a
deist at best and a politician at worst. Mr. Adams is just a man, like ourselves and unfortunately capable of judgement flaws.

Typical hypocricy

We are striving towards a goal of freedom in all forms for all people, and yet oppression is still alright with you as long as its backed by your fairy tales. Your beliefs do not have the authority to govern people. Its disgusting. You either want liberty or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Very Well Said

Yes, very well said.

I must admit that I have never had a gay friend and nor have I ever had a gay family member...well not that I am aware of.

I will admit that I have personal biases in that I would not frequent say a gay bar. And yet, I have enough intellectual sense to realize that my own biases are just that. I was brought a certain way and with that culture and upbringing I have biases.

A bias is not truth.

Be intelligent and mature enough to realize that we all have biases. Should I change my own ideas and start going to gay bars? No, of course not. That is not who I am. I'm not interested in that life style just as I'm sure that some people including gays are not interested in my lifestyle.

Do my biases give me some kind of God giving right to impose my way of thinking on others? Apparently for many American the answer is yes (so long as my bias conforms to theirs).

History shows that those that continue to use the bible to support racism and discrimination are on the losing side. Wasn't it just a few decades ago that Christian Evangelicals in the USA used the bible to support and promote slavery?

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

there is a difference in

there is a difference in freedom from tyranny and freedome from Gods law. There are absolutes.

Not to Me


It's RAND that I have the problem with...

but just to play devil's advocate, can I expect to see posts like these in the months to come?....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on the War on Drugs?

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on foreign policy?

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on civil liberties?....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on GMO Foods?....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on free-market economics?.....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on Gitmo?.....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on The Patriot Act?.....

Why it is imperative to continue supporting Ron Paul despite your opinion on ANYTHING?!?!?!?.....

Conviction matters. Integrity Matters. I learned this from Ron Paul.

"sometimes I hug the coffee table when no one is looking."

Voted up

Rand is the problem. Even more so then just a regular brainless neo-con , because there's a danger that he will be used to co-opt the Ron Paul base for the same-ol'.

Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage...

is phenomenal. As well as on any marriage whatsoever - monogamy , poligamy, poliamory. Whatever... Bottom line - get the govt the f**k out if it and let people form whatever voluntary relationships they want.

I agree with your message and

I agree with your message and most of all with Dr. Paul's views on this. NO federal government involved in marriage. If ever their was an individual (or state) issue, this is it. Truly, this should be decided by churches/synagogues, imo.

then when a church takes a

then when a church takes a stand not to Marry homosexuals they get sued... that is the problem.

Just ignore the Obama trolls.

This entire "gay marriage" oxymoron is an Obama issue that is being brought up here by Obama trolls to try to get Obama elected, and spread strife and bad policy.

Obama barely gets his new wedge-issue out of his mouth, and now this site is bombarded with gay trolls pushing his agenda.
Is it that hard to put 2+2 together and figure it out?

agree 100%

agree 100%

I'm no troll

I'm no Obama troll. I'm simply trying to clarify an obviously hot button topic of the moment. We can't ignore this issue, as it's a critical issue to a lot of voters in November.

wedge is the operative term

they seek to divide us...Everybody can agree on freedom

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007