84 votes

Does Ron Paul Support Gay Marriage?

Thanks Dr. Paul for giving us the Libertarian perspective


http://youtu.be/sQkNEcXPAHs

Dr. Paul gives a more elaborate explanation to Cavuto on Obama's Gay Marriage Statement, 5-9-12:


http://youtu.be/AW9ZcLSUVM4




Comment viewing options

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

I am a Christian, and I agree

I am a Christian, and I agree 100% with Congressman Paul. I refuse to be lowered to the level of using government to impose my standards onto other people. I think doing so is an admission that the message cannot convince individuals on its' own merits. Jesus appeared before several rulers, but He never once spoke a word that they should legislate the Bible. His cause was to inspire individuals to lead their own lives according to the Word.

Not government

Community and the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

.

.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

I agree so long as while they

I agree so long as while they are involved, all individuals receive equal treatment of the law. Just like all races receive free education, it doesn't mean we have to like public education, but if it exists, it shouldn't be segregated and or discriminatory.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

I am not sorry for the length of this comment

My argument for same sex marriage.
Legal marriage, as defined by the state is a contract between two consenting adults and the government for the purpose of extending legal and financial rights between two consenting adult persons not related by blood. The government can not discriminate in contracts based on the sex of an individual. It is for this reasoning that I believe two persons of the same sex will be allowed to marry via the supreme court decision.
Popular arguments against:
Religious; we have a freedom of expression in this country. Not everyone is the same religion, so laws, while originally crafted regarding a particular religious ceremony, will and can be changed to reflect a view consistent with non-prejudicial law. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two distinct bindings that do not need to coincide. A person can be married by the state without ever going into a church, just as two people could be married before god without ever filing with the state. This argument holds no legal standing.
Financial; the argument here states that it would create an unfair burden on companies and tax payers to pay for the benefits of same sex marriage. This is a false argument since single persons and homosexuals are paying for the marriages of men to women. There is no legal basis that should give one class of citizens the benefit over another class. Furthermore allowing same sex marriage may even end up costing the tax payer less. It is evident that marriages provide financial structure allowing couples to lean on each other for support, rather than government in cases of divorce.
Slippery Slope; many argue that if we allow same sex marriage that polygamy or beastiality marriages will follow. The legal precedent that will allow for same sex marriage is TWO consenting ADULT humans. There is no precedent that would lend itself to the validity of a marriage between man and sheep, lamp, child, or soccer team. This argument holds no standing.
Procreation; there is an argument that says marriage is between a man and a woman because they can create life. If the sole purpose of marriage was to create life, then elderly or infertile couples would be denied the right to marry. Furthermore, married couples with adult children whom they are no longer raising would be forced to divorce and would no longer be entitled to the benefits of marriage. This argument holds no standing.
I challenge anyone against same sex marriage to provide a logical and legal reason, without use of the above arguments, to tell me why same sex marriage should remain illegal.
I have been posting this argument for years and I have never once gotten a reply that did not invoke one of the aforementioned arguments.

Of course it's unfair, but you're arguing the wrong argument.

recent interview:
Alan Colmes:"As long as there is something in the code about straight marriage the only way to really have equality is to even up the score."

Ron Paul:"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Here's the real argument.
Preferential privileges are being granted to one group but denied to another. What should be done about it? Well here are the options:

1-Continue preferential treatment to one group while denying others
2-Give everyone preferential treatment
3-Give no one preferential treatment

Option 1 is obviously not fair to all parties. Option 2 and 3 are. But if option 2 means I have to, by law, recognize something as marriage that I do not recognize as marriage I would prefer option 3 as the best way to resolve the issue. Take government out of marriage all together. Or in other words take marriage out of the hands of government. Separation of marriage and state if you will.

"Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." -Ron Paul

If however 2 consenting adults, or more, wish to register their contract with the government so be it. It can include any details about children, visiting rights, property,power of attorney, tax status, etc. They can also apply for whatever benefits that will be determined for such unions. There is absolutely no reason why those same legal advantages currently enjoyed by hetero marriages cannot be applied to a system of civil unions for all. I'm not saying civil unions for gays and marriage for straights. I'm saying only civil unions will be recognized by the government. No government recognition or benefits for marriage at all. Only those who apply for government recognition of their civil union will receive such benefits. Marriage will be a separate private affair between you and your spouse in front of friends,family, God and church, or however you see fit. Just a cultural or religious affair with no recognized legal status, as it should be.

The problem is not that the government has defined marriage in a certain way; the problem is that the government is defining marriage at all. This is an endless war and a needless one. One that will go back and forth, constantly changing hands depending on who is in power forever. It's a needless division and distraction. It will never end if the issue is left in the hands of the government. So take it out of the hands of the government. Remember any "right" given to you by the government can be taken away. Marriage isn't a right the government can rightfully give or deny anyway so they should not be excercising control of it in the first place.

I will never recognize gay marriage as marriage. Some will never stop pushing for universal recognition of it as marriage. It is an impasse. The terms marriage and civil union may seem like semantics to some but it is quite serious and important for those who believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage laws were brought into the government at times when the notion of gay marriage was not even a consideration, traditional marriage was unquestioned and there was no problem codifying it into law. Times have obviously changed and I believe now is the time take sacred marriage out of the law books and a more neutral secular term be used for official government purposes.

Marriage should be reserved for private and/or religious purposes. Civil unions can cover the public, business and legal aspect.

One might say doing that would be more difficult than just saying gays can be married too. Well one way is the right way to do it which will end all the contention, and the other is destined to perpetuate the culture war in perpetuity, constantly dividing and distracting us from the real issues. So which is it? What does America want? The quick fix or the lasting fix?

Legal

Ha, well I don't think you'll get much argument here, most everyone agrees even those of us that believe it immoral, don't believe it should be illegal.

I agree with everything you

I agree with everything you said, albeit should be consenting adults have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter if five consenting adults want to enter into a lifelong commitment with one another. Marriage, legally speaking, is a contract. That means any consenting adults should be able to enter into it under the 14th Amendment. Likewise, that includes all people, not just two men, two women, or a man and a women, but even five consenting adults if they so desire. Government has no role in defining spirituality or religion, it should enforce contracts, period.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

On premise I agree with you.

On premise I agree with you. However on precedent, this would be an entirely NEW type of marriage that is not currently on the books, and polygamists would not be able to use the current model of marriage to justify multiple marriages.

I do have a little concern with polygamist marriages, in that for things such as health insurance, which laws require to cover spouses, would this then mean that one spouse could cover 100 wives, under one plan? If that's the case then how about everyone marries everyone and one person pays?

But on premise, yes I agree and I think the government should butt out.

This is why government

This is why government shouldn't be involved in marriage, like what Ron Paul says?

You are spot on. As it stands

You are spot on. As it stands now, the law is written to accompany a contract between two consenting adults, so the laws are truly only discriminatory towards homosexuals and bisexuals.

It just goes to show you how the government screws things up when they get involved in matters they shouldn't be involved in.

At the least, the government should declare all marriage licenses nothing more than civil union licenses as recognized by law. Then leave the definition of marriage to the private sector.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

Our FOUNDERS were CHRISTIANS!

...END OF STORY...I hate to tell you this, but they'd be rolling over in their graves, if they knew what we were talking about. Do you think they'd EVER in your lifetime consider this act "normal" or believe it ever should be in competition with "marriage" between a man & a woman? NOT.

There is no doubt about that. So, let's be real. Just because you might think two men/women should be "married" legally doesn't mean it's morally right. And, that's the rub.

97% of the population is heterosexual! 97%!

People don't care what you do behind closed doors, but when you try to force your change of terms on the rest of us, it raises hairs on most people's backs. The idea that a very small group of people want to force their belief-system on society at large is UNFAIR.

What, first you go for "equal rights" at our workplaces? How was that fair, when one man & one woman living together never got "benefits"? Then, you went for more---legal marriage in the eyes of the liberal courts. No, that wasn't enough! Then, you wanted to TEACH LITTLE CHILDREN in our public schools that 3% of the population's behavior was 'normal'. And, don't forget during the 80's you got the Social Workers in your back hip, so that you could adopt innocent children into your house---children who NEVER had a choice! And, you speak of freedom and rights!

No, this whole thing has gone way, way too far. Using these demented & morally-corrupt politicians to wield more influence & power over the population-at-large, is wrong, no matter how you slice it. Moreover, they just use the minority groups to gain more power. That's so obvious.

"97% of the population is

"97% of the population is heterosexual! 97%!"

Do you have a source on that? I'm pretty sure there are more bisexuals and homosexuals than 3%. Also, what population are you referring to? You know if we took a poll of Ancient Rome, when your wonderfully tolerant religion was created, the percentage of bisexuals would have been through the roof! Moreover, if they only make up 3% of the population, then that's even more reason not to hold irrational fears about them.

Either-way, I'm sure you won't respond with credible sources. Just know that your side is going to lose. It is perpetuating old ideas, just like those ideas which perpetuated tyranny over women and blacks.

"The entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of a universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the aristocracies of color, race, and sex." J.S. Mill

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

The founders of this country were also slave holders

Does that mean we should deny blacks the right to be free? The social norms at the time were very different. This issue has finally come to the fore front of the national discussion. But I agree with most here that this is not something for government to regulate. And I also agree that this is not something that should be shoved down our throats. Take this as an example: I am personally an atheist. Does that mean that I should have to accept Christianity as law? Should you be forced to give up your religion because of my beliefs? No. These are topics where these so called social engineers should just stay out of. It all seems like a big distraction anyways. Anybody checked the debt clock lately? How about those taxes taken out of your last paycheck? Whatever happens, this will all blow over eventually and the PTB will have to find another story of the week to keep the masses divided and distracted.

Jefferson was a Diest, so was

Jefferson was a Diest, so was Madison.

SteveMT's picture

Franklin was, also.

Then, there is the quintessential Diest, Thomas Paine. He wrote the the book "The Age of Reason" that changed the world of religion for all time.

Most of them were. Very few

Most of them were. Very few were "Christian" in the modern sense except for Washington and few others, who were of the Church of England that were essentially Anglicized Catholics.

Solutions for you

This isn't about what's moral or immoral. Government should have no say in that. If you believe it does then you are beyond help as you are jeopardizing your own beliefs by doing so.

What this is about is one group is being recognized by the government and receiving benefits and privileges while other groups who feel they are equal are being denied. Since the only real basis for this denial is religious in nature it does not and should not have any standing under a secular government. That would be establishing religion. On the other hand I object to religious terminology such as marriage being used in laws and statutes. Marriage is a private affair. A more neutral and secular term should be used for government purposes sucha as civil unions. This solution eliminates 90% of the debate.

As to your other points, if you feel so strongly about it you have options. If you are worried about your children being taught by those you do not approve of, take them out of that school and investigate your other options such as private, charter, parochial, homeschool, etc. If you are worried about those you do not approve of adopting innocent children, adopt them your self or help support agencies you do approve of to do so. Those kids need somewhere to go. Finally if you are worried about others using demented and morally corrupt politicians wielding power and influence over the population at large you must do your part to ensure that those politicians are put out of power and sent home and that trusted honest and wise leaders take their place. Also ensure that even those wise leaders do not have power over things that they are not authorized to by the constitution, such as marriage. Gays are ruining this country, the lack of self responsibility is.

You can oppose homosexuality personally and advocate against it all you want if you wish but you cannot dictate morality through those same laws and demented politicians and expect it not to come back and bite you.

Take the government out of marriage and everything else it doesn't belong.

DICTATING morality is EXACTLY what is going on!

I beg to differ with some of the comments that the homosexual lobby is NOT trying to dictate morals. That is a bald-faced lie that they are not. Why do you think there is such an uproar about all this? Look, the REALITY is that the homosexual lobby groups are bringing this to the Supreme Court. They defied what California citizens wanted, remember?

Even here where I live they are trying to LEGISLATE MORALITY at the K-12 level by legalizing the teachings of mommy & mommy and daddy & daddy. Yes, we can take our kids out, but this is a PUBLICLY OWNED INSTITUTION, and if you truly believe in the government not getting involved in legislating morality, then, you are being a hypocrite by saying we can just simply take our kids out of school. You know full well that most couples all work full-time jobs and cannot afford private schools, or homeschooling. What is fair about that? I suppose you think this is all very funny.

Regarding politicians, I think we at DP have hashed this around over & over again. As far as campaigning and getting involved, no one can criticize me for not doing my part---traveling out of state to campaign, donating thousands of dollars to Dr. Paul in both campaigns! But, you really are avoiding the issues here, because politically, I think we know who owns the voting processes---Goldman Sachs who has total control now over the Presidential Vote Tabulation software, conveniently located in Spain, and under the control of Balderton Capital in London. We all know how "fair" this last campaign was with rampant vote fraud by the RINOS. So, your "solutions" are ludicrous.

The PROBLEM is that this lobby group has pushed their way into every aspect of our lives. This isn't just about money. If that were the case, they wouldn't have pushed their way into the BOY SCOUTS. The point I'm making is that this IS about morality & legislating to get their way, and THAT is the REALITY.

Did I say that they werent ALSO trying to legislate morality?

They are. You are. Both sides are attempting to legislate morality. I'm saying quite clearly, STOP IT! I'm saying there is another option being constantly overlooked in this cartoonish perennial argument used to divide and conquer this nation. Take marriage off the table as something the government can decide, control or define. There. Done. Over with. Let's move on to the serious issues. The homosexuality debate, as well as countless other issues that the government has no legitimate business dealing with are distracting us from what doing what needs to be done. What I find humorous and also sad is how anyone on this forum can still seriously argue for or against gay marriage when it's not something the government should even be deciding. No one wins that battle. Both sides need to stop fighting each other and work together to get such usurped power out of the hands of the government. If you notice up above I said the same thing to someone advocating gay marriage so I'm not just singling you out. Both sides of this argument are in the wrong and as Ron Paul said about this "two wrongs dont make a right".

They were Unitarian

And deist for the most part.
Saying they were Christian is not accurate .

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Even if...

...there was not a single homosexual in the entire world, only heterosexuals, I would still push to get government out of marriage completely. Is not your private wedding ceremony in the sight of God, friends and family more meaningful than some piece of paper from the state? The less government involvement in these personal, private decisions, the better.

It doesn't matter if you or

It doesn't matter if you or even 97% of the population think this is "morally right". This isn't mob rule, and the law shouldn't exist to make people moral. The purpose of the law is to protect individual rights. A private contract between two people has no impact on your individual rights whatsoever.

that would certainly be one way to go with it

however i highly doubt the majority of the people will feel that way and want to give up their status, especially atheists like myself who would have no religious alternative.

marriage as a legal institution was not created on the basis to discriminate, however the use of it has now created discrimination. I don't think you scrap the whole concept, but rather modify it.

I, too, lean atheist. But I

I, too, lean atheist. But I certainly don't need the state's blessing when it comes to my relationship with my wife.

But you do need a rational federal rule

if two men who are married in massachusettes travel to pennsylvania, and in pennsylvania one man is injured, his spouse would not be able to visit him in the hospital.

this is just one of the 1100 federal benefits to being married, and if only left up to the states, it would have real life influences.

look i am libertarian, but there are SOME federal rules that must be in place to protect the best interest of the people without having a hodgepodge of state laws in regards to these things.

"Federal benefits" are the

"Federal benefits" are the problem, not the solution. If two people want to be able to visit each other in the hospital, they should write up a contract to that effect, and the state should not infringe on their rights by denying them visitation.

There should be no "federal benefits" whatsoever.

PRredlin---neither would a man & a woman

living together. So what? A man & woman "living together" don't get benefits. And, why should they?

Being a libertarian does not mean that every aspect of life is 'fair', or that all rules are 'fair'. Society is set up and grounded in the 'rules' of our religious foundations with tentacles firmly entrenched in our Constitution. If you loosen up our morals in our society to the point we have no moral compass, then, you have effectively undermined the Constitution, and the Constitution will collapse, as we are witnessing as each and every single day goes by.

Give a guy an inch, he'll take a mile. So few comprehend the wisdom of limits. They argue for government limits, but not moral limits. Where do you draw the line? Pretty soon we'll hear it's okay to have polygamy, because he loves all his wives, so why shouldn't he have as much.

We have to draw lines somewhere. Unfortunately, many young, as well as some old people have been brainwashed and influenced tremendously by Hollywood & TV, to the point they have lost their moral compass. Witness 'girls gone wild' on TV shows. Witness the degradation of love, but oh, when we want to use that term to our political advantage, out comes the 'love' card. I'm sick of it all. Hollywood & the filthy, corrupt politicians are close to ruining our culture! And, along with their own sick Pelosi, Feinstein, Boehner, Rino perversions, they are taking us down financially. First, Cyprus, next us...

Why would being...

...an atheist mean you could not have a wedding ceremony with a secular social group, in the presence of your friends and family? Would that not mean more than a slip of paper from the state?

I like the idea of government not even applying the label 'marriage' to anything and leaving that to private individuals and groups to define for themselves. I wonder how we could start working towards that -- maybe focusing on one state becoming civil unions-only?

I think thegood Dr has more important things to think about...

World War 3 planned.

http://www.dailypaul.com/279736/petrodollar-collapse-world-w...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.