Does anyone here know anything about this?

RP said that it is an issue for the states to deal with. If you read the constitution, it says that the Feds have to right to deal with issues like this. RP is "gay friendly' in a lot of ways because he says that people get their freedoms as an individual, not as a group. He said that marriage is an issue for the church to deal with, not the federal government. He wants to Feds to get out of the debate altogether, and let the states make the laws. I guess that he is neither for, or against the gay agenda. Make sense?

Every candidate got slammed on that article. I think that we, as a society, have to be over our homophobia by now. The opinions of a few neo-cons, or Marxists mean very, VERY little to our cause of freedom. Forget about it and MOVE ON!!!!

Here's my 2¢ from the supremely liberal Netherlands.
I think most folks are still confusing two things:
Church unions are called "marriages". It is a religious sacrament.
Lawful unions on the other hand, are just that... a union on paper, valid by law.
I don't think the latter has another name although I feel it should have its own distinct name to distinguish a union-by-law from a church wedding.
A union-by-law is something any state law could grant to any two humans regardless because there's no religious entity (Church) involved.

And step off the whole "gay, not-gay" paradigm. RP doesn't think that way. Regardless of what tools we prefer in bed, we're all individuals in his mind so we should start thinking that way too.

Joseph Farah is a Zionist, Noe-Con Fascist, not friendly to Ron Paul.

moving from misrepresenting to LYING. Ron Paul has said many times that GOV'T LICENSED marriages are recent, and Farah knows that (or he is wholly unqualified to have a press pass).

Dr. Paul believes marriages belong to the realm of religion, not gov't, certainly not federal gov't. He doesn't want the fedgov regulating marriages one way or the other nor does he want homosexual couples to lay claim to taxes and benefits at the expense of others.

Businesses/employers have the right to offer or not offer whatever benefits they choose, but they should not be mandated by gov't to offer benefits to homosexual couples. Paul wants to keep the gov't out of the bedroom.

If the most important issue to somebody is gay marriage then dont waste your time on them. They are already a lost cause and can do nothing but get in the way. This is only my opinion but come on people we are on the verge of a police state and have fascism knocking at our door and all people can worry about is gay marriage?? Wake up America plain and simple. It is the petty issues like this one that keep people distracted from whats really going on. My stand is if you want to get married then go get married to whoever you want to. Its not my place to judge and its not anyone else's place to judge someone either. Pay attention to more pressing issues instead of other people's private lives.

RP is for anyone to marry, and it is nobody else's business. Sounds good to me.

that he believes the institution of marriage belongs to the Church, and that if you want a definition of marriage just read a dictionary. In other words, Marriage has a definition that cannot be changed by govt.

Um... well... how to say this properly..... If a state wants to allow gay marriage, Ron Paul would not oppose it....
Lots of Churches in the religion of Christianity allow gay marriage now...
Some states will *not* allow marriage... Some Churches will not allow marriage...
If you want to get legally married you can... in Hawaii and Mass... probably California to follow...
If you want to get married religously... there are Churches that now allow it... plenty of progressive Churches...

As for the *rights* granted to legally married people... almost *all* of those are now provided by gay-friendly companies and corporations now anyway in that they offer DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP insurance etc... it seems to be the trend to keep their employees happy and stable and I doubt there will be any return to the older days....

Also, legal rights are now dictated in *all* states by who is the co-signer of any legal document... GUESS WHAT.... LEGAL DOCUMENTS do not fall under wills anyway... if you have a CD or other investment, there is the clause *right of survivorship* that falls outside of any States probate.
etc. etc. etc...

basically I am saying that gay people everywhere pretty much have the same rights as domestic partnership as *legally and religously* married people... Some states allow gay people to adopt... The trend will only continue to more tolerance.. I think the *gay* barrier is pretty much broken down now anyways as almost everyone has a family member or friend who is gay and tolerant...

There will always be intolerant people, but I have a label for them... STUPID...

Our forefathers of the 1700's were not required to get permission from the state to be married..it was a function of the church. (Do a google search on "History of marriage" in the US) In the 1800's laws were passed in various states regulating who could or could not marry (mixed races, mentally handicapped, etc.) By the 1920's there were other reasons the states decided to track marriages...health, taxes, census etc.
Ron Paul gave one of the more recent reasons for state required marriage licenses (health)...he has also stated that he believes marriage is an institution of the church - not the government. Again, he would leave this up to states to decide.

to you. That is totally cool, but this is an awful place to get that clarification....which I guess you have already figured out. Email the HQ.

The doc is the individual rights man. If they watch The Don't Tread on me youtube his view on groups and rights for groups is really well explained.

When debating with someone let them understand that Dr. Paul feels that we do not get our rights by being black, white, gay female or male we get our rights from our creator. This explains a lot of what he believes and, more importantly, why.

He does not wish federal government involvement in marriage. Please know that by giving a group, any group, special rights then that group gains above the rights of the individual.

If the person you are debating can grasp why Dr. Paul sees something a certain way then they can learn to predict his stance on issues.

I just say this..."I am supporting Dr. Paul because he is the only candidate who will bring our troops home right away...I have friends with children in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is just awful the worry..."

It gets the debate to the point. He is the only man who will stop the killing of our soldiers. If someone is fussy about one issue..it is tough to walk away from that one.

Good luck, brother,

We want it more than they do so we learn the core reasons for a stance on an issue and then the person can see it from the right perspective.

T

and I can tell you this, marriage is a contract between you, your spouse and God. God is the Decider, not the government. First they "license" marriage, then they want to tax having babies. This is literally what is being proposed. In China, they have a one child policy. How did such a thing begin? By allowing the government to make decisions concerning the family and health. A good study in history is needed here and this may sound radical, but the truth is, America has been a leader in the Eugenics movement and Americans had forced sterilizations, just as the Chinese people have forced abortions right in my home state of Iowa in the thirties. It would be better for everyone if the government minded their own business. Especially in regard to my families' health and well-being. As an Evangelical Christian, I love God and trust in his mercy and judgement. I would rather him be the Decider on who gets punished than have the Government decide on whether or not I can have children or what I can teach them. I myself don't want the government to choose anything for me. Please Mr. Government, don't "help" me anymore.
Also, if we get anyone but Ron Paul in, the U.N. will make the decisions concerning family. I know you don't want that.

He believes that Marriage should be a function of the Church not the state.

The massive entitlements from taxes, to health care is what has people clamoring for federal intervention on the question of marriage. The Constitution has no provision for regulating marriage.

Hold them to their oath:
President
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Ron Paul was asked for his stance on gay marriages. He belives it should be decided at the state level (like alot of other issues that are not defined in the constitution). As for the reference to health reseasons, he was referering to why gays are demanding rights to marriage so they can have health insurance benifits like a husband and wife. Ron Paul was misquoted. I suggest you go to his website & read his stance on all issues.

No he didn't say marriage was a recent thing. He said government issuance of marriage was a recent thing. Before that marriage was always simply between you and your church the government didn't have any business in who got married because there were not government benefits for marriage (I think this was US centric though, I'm sure there were countries before us that had such ideas??).
US government recognition of marriage came about through requirements of blood test first then through tax and health care benefits.

Paul is saying that the government should have no say in who is married and who is not, but he also says that healthcare companies and whatnot should be allowed to create their own policies in who they consider married or not..

Your on a Ron Paul forum asking for help from people to make speeches against him?!!!

Do your own damned research!

Not to mention that your information is faulty, just like most people's who try to slander him.

He said that THE GOVERNMENT being in marriage is recent and for health reasons.

A huge problem with the electorate in this country is their insistance on being distracted by stupid fringe issues, such as gay marriage. What a great distraction for all of the easily led, and a great tool for those who manipulate them.

The Retrocon
Hope for America, Ron Paul for President in 2008!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would allow states to regulate sexual practices and "same-sex marriage" independently.

The last comment I heard is that Ron Paul said the government should be out of the Marriage business, and it should be left up to the chuches on who gets married and who doesn't, because Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a governmental one.

I don't think Salon is giving him thier "3rd best" rating because of his stance on marriage, since he said that should be left to the church. I think its more about his stance on gays in the military and that he believes Americans should have equal benefits in law - health care, wills etc.