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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

About the Etymology of Matrimony

I definitely think that true thinking is in important sense taking care of language and one can only truly take care of something one understands as well as possible. To think as caring for language always means being highly conscious of the etymologies of words.

In the Wiki-link it says: The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

This would mean that male-gay marriage at least does not make sense at all if the word originates from 'mother' unless the mother is taken only in a metaphorical meaning. But does that also mean that a woman who is not a mother, that is, in 'state', 'action' or 'condition' of mother is not actually married. And is the original bond or union here not between the man and woman but between the woman and the baby which makes a woman a mother? Or does the 'action' which makes the mother originally into the 'condition' or 'state' which is the presupposition of motherhood, that is, the sexual act which produces a child and in that sense also the mother the original matrimony. But only a sexual act that conceives a child makes the union of marriage. The sexual act that does not produce a child and for that matter a mother is not a matrimony. Would this also mean that in etymological sense a woman who has children with many men is actually in some sense married to all of them, meaning in some metaphysical sense. Here metaphysical means both what we understand normally by metaphysical, but also in the etymological sense of 'meta' meaning 'after'. So physical act of sex came first and then 'after' came the child and the motherhood, that is, the matrimony which are the meta-physical of physical act of sex.

In this sense homosexuals would not be able to be in matrimony in the etymological sense of the word as their physical act of sex will never be able to produce the meta-physical motherhood.

If this train of thought has any sense in it what kind of consequences would it have? For example, would it mean that instead of the idea that which many Christians have, that is, "no sex before marriage", it be turned pretty much upside down as now the idea would perhaps be "no marriage before motherhood".

These were few extempore thought that came from reading your comment. I am not even sure do I agree with them myself if I would think the matter little bit more. So they are truly extempore, that is, thoughts that I have not thought before reading your comment.

Thanks for inspiring my mind! By the way Lysiandad I always enjoy reading your comments.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

I wonder how much this really

I wonder how much this really matters, though.

Suppose the etymology of 'marriage' came from 'mar', which means "to merge"

(It doesn't, I am just making a hypothetical)

If this were true, would you then be fine with gay marriage?

It seems like this hinges on more than the origin of the word.

Cyril's picture

I don't care at all about WHAT is denoted by "gay marriage".

Personally, I don't care at all about WHAT is denoted by "gay marriage". People do whatever they want, it's none of my business if I'm not involved.

Again, what I DO care about / what I am concerned with ... is how the government and perverted laws CAN ALWAYS BENEFIT from uselessly confusing terminology.

This is NEVER innocent. See my Divide and Conquer comment below.

Allow people, one day, to defend firmly the case for calling "aspartame" = "sugar". After all, that's very close, no?

I promise you some law makers will find much grateful lobbyists to push them for action in that direction.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Ron and DOMA

This is an issue that has been all of the Daily Paul for years, but it's something that still bugs me and I have never gotten a clear answer about it.

I love the clip of Ron Paul in the OP, and think its spot on. But I don't understand how the Ron Paul in the above clip can also be the Ron Paul who supports DOMA. Above, he says he doesn't want the government to impose its definition of marriage on him. But that's exactly what DOMA does. It creates a federal-level definition of marriage.

This video was posted in another post on DP

Dr. Paul addresses the reason he supported DOMA at minute 6:15. Hope that helps :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YePa-B7TY8&feature=youtu.be

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Thanks

I actually saw this video before, but I rewatched it to check I wasn't missing something. But it still leaves me very confused.

Paul asks: when did this become a federal issue? I would say it became a federal issue when the federal government decided it was going to define what marriage was, as it did in DOMA in 1996.

Paul asks: why do we even require a license to get married? I agree. Let's get rid of the law that defines marriage at the federal level, and also let's stop the feds from treating people differently whether they are married or unmarried.

I'm right there with ya!

I don't think government has any business being involved in marriages. I used to be confused by Paul's support of DOMA as well, but here's how I've come to understand his position on it (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

The main purpose of DOMA is to restrict the requirement for any state to have to recognize the married status of a same-sex couple who were legally married by a state that allows same-sex marriage. Here is the text on Section 2 (from wiki):

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

This would be entirely consistent with what Paul has said all along; that the federal government should not impose a definition for marriage on the states. When it comes to Section 3, from the best of my understanding, it just means that *as it pertains to the US Congress (i.e. federal govt)* when the term "marriage" is used it will only pertain to that between a man and a woman. Here is the text from Section 3 (again from wiki):

"Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

I don't believe the intent here was for the federal government to say "This is what marriage is, and this is the ONLY acceptable definition for marriage anywhere within the country" but instead to just say that if Congress passes any sort of legislation dealing with marriage (regarding taxes or legal issues) that it is only talking about marriage between a man and a woman. I'm guessing the purpose of this is so that if a same sex couple who got married in a state that allows it moved to another state that didn't they wouldn't be able to point to legislation passed by Congress regarding some sort of legal benefit or protection for married couples and say, "Well you have to give us this benefit because Congress said it was for married couples and we were married in such'n'such."

Unfortunately when you have people just saying, "DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman", it doesn't really give the entire scope of what it is saying as it's really far too simplistic an explanation. I hope I explained that clearly enough. Does that make sense?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Your understanding of DOMA

Your understanding of DOMA article 3 coincides with mine. I am opposed to article 3 for exactly the reason why you are in favor it. I believe it is unjustified for the federal government to give any definition of marriage. That power should be left to the states. If the feds want to give goodies to married people, then they have to accept the state's definition. If they don't like it, then they should get out of the goodie-giving business altogether.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

I'm not in favor of section 3 of DOMA. Hell, I'm not really in favor of ANY of DOMA as I don't think government at ANY level (federal, state, or otherwise) has any business getting involved in people's relationships. It's all just one big distraction to keep people from realizing the tyranny of the government tracking people and stealing their money. So instead of people questioning why the govt is doing any of this to begin with they end up fighting over who gets to be a part of it for the "benefits" provided. Hopefully people will one day realize this. Any time the govt gets involved to "solve" a problem it just creates a handful more.

I don't know what Ron Paul's position is concerning section 3 as I haven't heard him specifically address it. I only know that he supported section 2. I agree too that if the federal govt is going to be giving out benefits it should do so based on the definition of marriage in which the couple resides. I guess maybe some of the anti-gay marriage people might see that as forcing them to accept that definition somehow? But maybe the definition issue in DOMA will prove to be a great opportunity to wake people up to the absurdity of the whole thing and turn the tide on the attitude towards government involvement in the issue and its motivation for being involved. Then again maybe I'm too optimistic and underestimate the desire for people to remain comfortable in their enslavement. Hopefully that's not the case :)

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

SteveMT's picture

Amen to that Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul makes this issue sound so simple because in reality it is.

He Considers It A Freedom Of Speech Issue

As he explains in Liberty Defined, if two people want to call themselves married, it is their First Amendment right to do so.

What kind of a bully do you have to be to tell such people, "No! You can't call yourselves married."?

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Alliance with None

I don't think the commenter meant that you can't "call yourselves married", or whatever you like. Who cares? I don't, and I doubt seriously anyone else does either on this planet.

But, when a minority group of people try to FORCE their way into being included in an over 2,000 year tradition of man & woman and their bond in marriage, that's another matter. It's like you're trying to call something blue that's always been green.

FORCING is wrong. But, you have to face the fact that our culture has always been rooted in Christian theology, the Ten Commandments, and God. I mean, it's how we have survived among people. Procreation is part of the natural law which is part of God's law. Even nature itself indicates that the 'other' way is not normal.

Most people don't care what a person does behind closed doors, but when he/she starts forcing their views & their lifestyles down other people's throats, it gets out of hand. When this minority of people insists on educating MY children that that behavior is "normal", it's gone way, way, way too far.

Check the Bohemian Grove out---no wonder our politicians are doing the bidding of the Banker Elites.

But how are two people of the

But how are two people of the same sex, who want to be treated for federal purposes the same way as any other married couple, trying to force something down your throat?

Take the DOMA case before the supreme court right now. A woman's wife dies, and the IRS comes after her for a quarter million dollars. If the woman had a husband, the IRS would have done nothing. So the woman now loses a quarter million dollars of her money to government simply because she's married to another woman.

Public schools

Because then the public schools start trying to teach your kids that it's normal. Like they are doing in MA. And if you want to opt your kid out, or even insist on being informed of when it will be brought up in class, you could get arrested (google David Parker and the Lexington schools). These two opposing views of marriage cannot coexist.

This isn't about asking people to be tolerant - it's demanding people be accepting of this behavior.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Cyril's picture

Yes, okay... "IF TWO people".

Yes, okay... "IF TWO people".

Government and/or force of law should have NO SAY, then, WHATSOEVER - and EITHER WAY.

This is what people, gay or not, don't get :

forcing (upon everybody) the terminology acceptance of "gay marriage" is only an excuse for government to interfere further, beyond the vocabulary, precisely.

NAME IT BY LAW, then you can TAX IT and MANAGE IT (read: PLUNDER IT, after a while).

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Civil Union

Should be the correct term.

I've never been married although I say I have been. I entered into a civil (hetero) union. I was not wed in a church. Well... I was. Except for it was a wedding in NV in a rinky dink "church". We never were formally married. IMO.

I honestly use the term married in the wrong context a lot. We dissolved our civil union 11 years ago.

A man and a man could also enter into a civil union along with a woman and a woman. I see no problem in that.

I think anyone should be able to enter into a civil union. But a marriage is different and over the years I recognized I was never actually married, although I throw around the term loosely.

My divorce cost me about $300 through a paralegal.

I have to hand it to my ex wife. She was ballsy enough to not want anything. I really admire her for that especially since I offered her my car, all my money, computer, whatever it took to get her back on her feet. I really liked her a lot, except she didn't want to be a mother any more. I wanted to help her.

I don't know if she is alive or dead, haven't talked to her since she signed all custodial papers stating she was not fit to be a mother.

But IMHO Man-Man is not marriage as much as my supposed marriage was. Same with woman-womam.

I don't see any problems, but I see marriage as being in a church with man and woman. A civil union is different and should be allowed much like my own.

Her brother was gay and found a lover in hawaii. I really liked him a lot because he was a badass. We used to swap gay jokes. But his partner had HIV and I kept telling him to use a condom. He didn't, refused medical treatment, and is no longer with us.

But he was a great guy and kicked the crap out of the dude my ex cheated on me with.

On the positive side I have a son who is incredible. Ir's been hard work.

But coming from that angle, civil union is the best term.

If Ron Paul were voting in

If Ron Paul were voting in Texas as to allow homosexual marriage or not, Ron would vote NO.

This is something that's been

This is something that's been on my mind a lot, and I'm afraid I agree with you on that one. Unfortunate, but true.

Highly Unlikely

It seems highly unlikely, Dr. Paul would use the Violent force of government to interfere with the Peaceful union of two consenting adults even at the state level.

Perhaps he would voice opposition to his fellow church-goers, which would be fine, as that is where Marriage belongs, and as such, the institution is a Private-Property Rights issue [read: Faith].

Some churches and their congregations will have no problem in marrying queer couples, others will, and that is what happens in a Free Society.

Instead in asking SCotUS to issue a decree, the government wins by continuing to polarize folks along the lines of their People-Group.

Marriage

I agree with RP. There should not be three parties to a marriage contract.

donvino

I've never liked this

I've never liked this argument that the government should just "get out of marriage".

A big reason that government gets involved in marriage is so that if something happens, government knows what to do. There is a record...ok you are married, ok you have a kid together, OK here is what you agreed to when you got married, etc. etc. It becomes necessary to have a "forced" contract because the relationship (whether man-man or woman-woman or man-woman) is such a significant thing in a person's life, that it is going to come up.

It is like, why does the government require deeds to houses? Why do they require proof of ownership, that transactions of property are all written down and noted? Because then if there is some kind of squabble, it can be dealt with by looking at the paperwork. As long as the American legal system exists, this is going to be the case.

This isn't like the olden days. Then, there were no marriage contracts, because society/church said "the man is right" 99 times out of 100. There are literally instances of a man wanting to marry a new wife, and simply leaving his old wife (if not killing her) with nothing to her name.

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

I can't believe a libertarian

I can't believe a libertarian just made this argument. "If something goes wrong, government must know what to do". Uh, no.

I think family and friends can figure it out on their own. Astonishing, I know. lol

Oh and government requires deeds so they can make sure the IRS knows what people own, haha, so they can take it!

"I think family and friends

"I think family and friends can figure it out on their own. Astonishing, I know. lol"

What if they go to court? That was my original point.

BTw, sure, family and friends can figure it out on their own. That doesn't mean they should.

I mean, if you get divorced from your wife, her family and her friends could decide that she gets the house, the money, and custody of the children! Hey, FRIENDS AND FAMILY decided! End of story!

"Oh and government requires deeds so they can make sure the IRS knows what people own, haha, so they can take it!"

That is a consequence, but not the intent. It is no difference from requiring documentation for any transaction. If it goes to court, the court needs those documents.

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

the govt requires deeds

to indicate who is responsible for paying the rent on the property. If you look at your own deed you will see that in no place does it refer to you as the owner, just 'tenant' of some type. If you don't pay the rent (property taxes), you will be thrown out and the property will be 'sold' to someone who will pay the rent.

Many states switched to this system around 1934. Feel free to look it up - have your deed in hand.

My deed refers to me as the

My deed refers to me as the owner?

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

Ok

Well personally as a Christian I do not agree with gay marriage but do I care? I really don't and people can do what ever they want. It doesn't affect my life. But the only thing that bothers me is how people are reacting to this. If I go on facebook, I find thousands of people spreading support for Gay Marriage. People are standing up for this strong. Why do people ignore the real issues that surround our Liberty. I just find it weird. It almost feels like people are chipped to react to something that really means nothing.

This is where you are wrong.

This is where you are wrong. As a Christian I am sure you read your bible. Reading your bible you should see that no matter what nation it has been, when the populace of a nation falls into sin, whether it is homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, stealing, a corrupt banking or political system, God judges that nation as a WHOLE. This baloney of people forcing others to accept a decadent lifestyle is wrong. Look at how many times the nation of Israel was judged for what it's people and it's leaders did. God has not changed in 6000 years. The US will be judged and held accountable just like every nation before it.

God won't judge his own people

The problem is we really shouldn't be attempting government with worldly people who haven't been born again, when the Bible says to separate yourselves.

The Bible principle is separation. Many of the early colonies in the United States were Christians leaving Europe separating themselves. Hancock's father was the preacher of one such religious colony, where the American Revolution started, and this continued all the through the war of Independence, where all the States were still Christian.

At some point after American Independence, requirements that you had to be a Christian to hold office or be a citizen, swearing on the Bible to give evidence in court, etc, started being removed (and fyi if you want to look for a systematic conspiracy, look here).

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

And that has been shown not

And that has been shown not to work.

If you believe in voluntary government, then I for one am tired of dealing with the unsaved. And the voice of the bridegroom and bride will no longer be heard in her.

It is entirely possibly to separate yourself in heart if not physically from the world right now. You can also choose who you deal with. In the end, it will again be this way and not a government with the lost, because Jesus Christ will come back and rule with his saints.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Sounds Stupid

SIERRAHPBT, what does it tell you that your political logic tells you to defend INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and yet your faith is pushing you defend COLLECTIVZED SALVATION? Which is it? Is an individual responsible for his individual actions, or is it group salvation? It seems illogical, if not immoral to be held accountable for WHAT OTHERS DO.

It sounds like you're defending a rather immoral system to me. Why should I be held responsible for the immoral actions of the thugs of government? Under your logic, I could be in jail for tax evasion and then be killed by God as he seeks to punish me for our "collective sins".

THIS.

SOUNDS.

RIDICULOUS.