How would Paul supporters vote on Prop 8?

The Federal Government has no authority to regulate marriage of any kind. It is a religious ceremony.

I can't speak to the legality of this at the state level, I'm not familiar with Californian law.

However, speaking to the morality of this at any level of government, all I can say is...get the government out of the churches. A church should be able to marry two people--or refuse to do so--at its discretion.

Speaking as a someone who believes that true religious liberty means that no one sect should be able to force its positions on other sects through the government...I say get the churches out of government. Two people who want to get married should have no obstacle other than finding a church willing to preform the ceremony.

If you want to create a parallel civil institution to marriage, fine. But you can't call it marriage, because marriage is a religious ceremony. Period.

As for the Mormons spending $20 million on this...apparently wallowing in their collective homophobia is more important than, say, helping hurricane victims. Or starving children.

It is this issue more than any other except the War on Terror that makes it hard to stomach the "Republican" label on my voter registration card. If we want to turn the party around, we need to supplant the (disgustingly statist) theocrats.

I don't live in CA, but I would have voted YES on Proposition 8. This issue isn't about equality, it is about preferential treatment for gays and lesbians.These people want nothing more than to FORCE all Americans to accept their lifestyle as normal when it is the farthest thing from it. For one thing, the conduct of homosexuals and transsexuals is an abomination to the Lord as it is stated in several Bible passages. Secondly, Ron Paul himself has stated that this issue should be left to the states and that he has no problem at all with states that want to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He has also stated that no state should be forced to accept another state's gay marriage. I agree with these statements and also can accept a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in the above mentioned traditional normal sense, even though Ron Paul doesn't agree with that. A reason that I think that gays want preferential treatment is because I see what is happening where I live. Here in Montgomery County, MD, where the entire County Council is controlled by liberal democrats, a gay or lesbian who works the county can have the county pay for their live in same sex partner's health insurance. A heterosexual in the same situation who is cohabitating with an unwed significant other doesn't have the same privilege. Why is this? The rationale for the libs is that the heterosexuals can get married, while the homosexuals cannot. If this isn't preferential treatment, then I don't know what is. I would think that it would be fair if only married couples were allowed to get health care this way. It would save the residents money in taxes. Other problems here include sex education at the county middle and high schools that includes teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable normal lifestyle. Parents can opt to keep their kids out of these classes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this material shouldn't be taught in county public schools to begin with. Still another problem here is the fact that transsexuals can use the bathroom of their choice throughout the county and can sue you if you choose not to hire them for a job if it can be proven that you rejected them for being transsexual. Churches and other religious institutions are not exempt from this. We actually had enough signatures to repeal this law and put the measure on the ballot for referendum, but the gay rights lobby hired lawyers, sued, and managed to keep the referendum off of the ballot. Alot of people weren't happy with this, alot of them democrats, believe it or not.

Fortune Favors the Bold

earlier O'reilly was on somewhere and they talked about this issue as an example of the radical left trying to force their will on the majority.

Apparently this thing has lead to some heated controversy and anger, and I can understand why.

Proposition 8 was worded very poorly. I think its opponents actually screwed themselves on this one, because they made the language unnecesarily harsh, thinking it would help the bill be defeated (they were actually challenged on this by it supporters), but the bill passed anyway.

The intention of the amendment was to counteract recent california decisions to honor gay marriage the same way they honor heterosexual marriage AS A STATE DEFINITION with attached legalities and benefits.

Personally, I think marriage should be completely separated from government, and this is one of those situations where trying to incorporate something that is partially religous and cultural into a function of the state breeds animosity and division.

After all,if the government is going to be handing out benefits to certain people based on them performing in a religous ceremony, it does seem to be a violation of church and state.

On the other hand, by expanding these benefits to other definitions, those same religous people feel their sacrament is being redefined by the government.

The big issue with Prop 8 was that while it was intended to undo the legal recognition by California, part of the text reads "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment", and "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"

By this language, the amendment could be seen as California reserving the right to ban any contractual agreements by gay couples or religous ceremonies that involve gay couples, even independent of the question as to whethere those marriages would carry legal weight in the sense of state benefits. It was this aspect that so inflamed the "ultra-left."

As far as what Ron Paul would do, it seems clear to me that as a Christian, he is oppossed to gay marriage, as a libertarian and hypothetical California voter, he would be oppossed to the use of government to legislate morality, and as a constitutionalist and congressman, he would say that it is not an issue for the Federal government.

if someone is gay and wants to marry how is it the concern of anyone but those two people? whether you agree with gay marriage or not, what happened to living your life as you see fit? i would also accept your church choosing not to perform such marriages. aren't we here for individual liberty?

As a Christian I would be willing to bet he would have voted Yes on 8.

However, as a politician he is very clear on this!

He has said it is a State Issue -- It is not a Federal Constitutional Issue, nor should the Federal Gov't get involved.

The State decided and now the Gays can "rethink" the "reasons" against Gay Marriage have been given.

One of the main reasons I'm against the current "tour de force" of gay marriage is that we as educators are being forced to take sensistivity training and gay marriage "re-education."

Gays have worked very hard to get religion out of School and they have. Now they want to lobby to get their position into the schools and that is not "fair." I agree keep Church out of School, I agree heterosexuals should not have advantages over single people, I agree gays and lesbians should be able to create any contract or make any claim on inheritance or retirement they chose, and lastly I would counter argue if they get church out they must get gays-out of the school system.

Most of the people I've talked to voted "Yes on Prop 8" because of the education ploy.

Now if you are Gay or infavor of Gay Issues go back and rearticulate your argument. Focus on Contract Law, Inheritance, Insurance, Un-Fair Hetero Married Tax Advantages - etc etc etc.

So - Ron Paul is "YES ON 8" as a Christian and "YES - Give it to the States Civil Matters are for the States."

That is Paul's position and don't fake the funk :)

Octobox
Wisdom is the anticipation of consequences! Tara Mata

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Thomas Paine

is taken away from the government. Government shouldnt grant marriage licenses. Religious practice belongs in the hands of religious people,and to allow gays to push gay as normal ,then shove it into the public school books as normal would be ridiculous.I pay taxes unfortunately which fund the socialistic public school,and I personally would not care to fund a school that suddenly pushes gay ideas as "normal" just because the government has permitted gay marriage as "normal" under a "marriage" license . So until the government is taken out of granting licenses,i will never permit gay marriage to be defined as normal under the government.