...Congressman Paul’s view of same-sex “marriage” can best be summed up in one phrase: states rights. Ron Paul believes homosexuals should be allowed to “marry”…in states that legalize the practice.
At the same time, Paul is a lifelong Christian who says he personally believes in traditional marriage. In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” In August, Paul repeated, “I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman.”
... However, Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.
... After hearing Paul’s stance at the recent Thanksgiving Family Forum, Bob Vander Plaats of The Family Leader told the Des Moines Register, “I think he let his libertarian view trump his moral compass.”
11 Comments
Paul's Libertarian stance makes a world of sense in a country that has a religious foundation and a moral framework. Unfortunately, the liberals have successfully convinced the People - with the help of the NEA - that religion is bad and should be completely separated from government, thereby effectively removing morality from government.
Without a basis for morality, the People are left to their own devices and all of our laws are subject to re-evaluation. Even the notion of stealing, once considered reprehensible, is now being is advocated, albeit under the name, "wealth redistribution." Killing, under the name "pro-choice," is accepted by nearly 50% of the population.
Control of sexual promiscuity is perhaps one of the greatest advances of civilization. No longer did we mindlessly and selfishly screw one another and create children without concern like wild animals. We learned the value of man and woman taking responsibility for their offspring; we learned how sexual promiscuity leads to uncared for children and the spread of disease; we learned that same-sex sodomy spreads disease. And yet, with morality gone, we now find ourselves reverting very quickly to such base conduct. It's our nature as animals; it's the antithesis of civilization.
It is human nature to not want restrictions on our behavior; witness the little child who throws tantrums when not given what he desires. Allowing the "States" to decide what to do about marriage in a moral-less society will ultimately lead to decisions by the People to allow everyone to do whatever they want to do, so long as it doesn't seem to adversely effect anyone else.
This has been tried before in ancient civilizations, such as ancient Rome and Greece. It always ends badly, and society has to rebuild itself on a renewed moral foundation. Amazing that we can see this coming and yet, it seems, we who do see it are powerless to overcome the power of the masses who just don't get it.
States rights? Would that imply any one State can go back to allowing human - s l a v e r y -? Aren't there Constitutional Conventions that can decide Federal Law (and thereby change the laws of all States in that regard), by large majority?
I personally go the States-rights route because States are suppose to be competing for residency.
Now I support constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage at the state level but not at the federal level for the reason that I don't believe the federal government should be deciding social policy.
Let's be realistic here folks, a federal marriage amendment will never happen. It just won't. Conservatives would have to make even larger gains in the house and obtain more than the 60+ votes required to pass legislation to ensure that the amendment comes to a debate and is voted on and so far the only party where such Conservatives are in abundance reside in the GOP. Now answer me this, what is the likely hood of us actually getting to 60 seats or more in the senate? At best we'd probably get anywhere between 54 and 60. The house I predict anywhere between another 10 to 30 seats gained. Unless there are a lot of democrats who agree with such an amendment, we'll be lucky to have it put to a vote in at least one chamber of congress.
I would support a Federal Marriage Amendment if it actually had a chance at passage, but that's assuming the GOP picks up over 20 seats in the senate in 2012. At this point in time, we're better off winning this battle at the state level.
I know I'll draw some fire from fellow conservatives here but this how I feel about the issue.
So unless public opinion changes dramatically towards our favor and we win absolute majorities in congress along with the white house, I'm gonna have to support Marriage Privatization.
A federal marriage amendment would effectively be the same thing as an agreement by the states to define marriage the same way.
Its not "federal government" that would create the amendment, but it would be the states.
Furthermore, your proposed solution, to allow state marriage amendments, makes them vulnerable to the federal government imposing its view on the states via the judicial branch.
By contrast, a federal marriage amendment protects the states by limiting the powers of the federal government.
@bman
I have moved more in favor of a federal marriage amendment because I believe this war on religion and traditional values needs to end. The only reason why I haven't full on supported such an amendment mostly has to do with I still have faith that the 10th amendment can prevail and will.
"Furthermore, your proposed solution, to allow state marriage amendments, makes them vulnerable to the federal government imposing its view on the states via the judicial branch. "
There are various ways around this, as Newt Gingrich has said, one solution is to re-pass DOMA and make it unappealable by the courts. Another route, though it would be unlikely that we venture down it would be to pass a law to make DOMA virtually impenetrable from legislative or judicial action. Because one thing is true about Constitutional Amendments, eventually it will get repealed.
However, if a federal marriage amendment miraculously passes both chambers of congress then good, we can end this debate. But the sure way to do this would be to win enough seats to amend the constitution and to persuade a few democrats and liberal republicans to go along with it.
Hadn't heard that but it sounds interesting.
But if Congress did that, seems like the court would view it as interfering with the court's constitutional authority to interpret the constitutionality of the statute.
True, but since the intention of DOMA was to ensure States had the ability to define marriage as they saw fit that won't be a problem no matter what dissenters may think. DOMA was enacted to protect States Rights.
While that was the intent of DOMA, it doesn't seem to have made it, "unappealable by the courts."
I was thinking you meant some new feature would be added to DOMA to make it court proof on a re-pass, since it does not seem to be court proof currently.
@bman
IThe intention of DOMA was to protect states rights. But of course you have those faithful few who interpret the constitution as a "living" document. This is where amending DOMA becomes necessary. Either we amend the language of DOMA to the Constitution or we pass another law that protects it from being challenged in court.
Most of my opposition comes from the fact that the left advocates a free society when it comes to their agenda. They support legalizing marijuana, but want to prohibit cigarette use. They believe children should learn how a condom should be put on but oppose religion being taught or someone participating in prayer.
I can't align myself with a philosophy that can't distinguish between right and wrong.
I agree in principle with the two options you mention.
However, you said Newt thinks a re-pass of a DOMA statute can be protected from an activist court more than the DOMA version that now exists.
Do you have an details on how the re-pass version of DOMA would be different than the existing version?
"However, you said Newt thinks a re-pass of a DOMA statute can be protected from an activist court more than the DOMA version that now exists.
Do you have an details on how the re-pass version of DOMA would be different than the existing version?"
Honestly, I do not know how this would work. Mr Gingrich originally said this not me. I'm no constitutional lawyer so I couldn't outline the details.
Obviously it's a long shot, and I don't know what goes on in his head most of the time. He is ambitious though. Remember, they also tried to pass a Protect Marriage Act under Bush that failed before it even came to a vote, I would think it would have achieved the same goal or maybe have gone further.