Official Ron Paul for President 2008 Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Versus the people who all together want to let the government take control of it. I agree that I don't like his standpoint on it, but his position makes it so the situation is not any worse, or any better. It leaves it where it is, unless you're saying he wants to get rid of all benefits of marriage or something. I'll take a lateral move there in turn for some more positive motions elsewhere.

---

How does his view apply to civil unions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I wonder what revisionist history he'd tell you.

---

Or that we won the Iraq War thru Shock and Y'awl? I'm glad those last throes didn't last long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

and then there's this:

---

You misquoted him there. He was speaking of "[federal laws defining marriage is] an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." not "same-sex marriage."

His beef is not with same-sex marriage itself, but with federal vs state rights on the issue. Here's your source you left out:

Quote:

---

HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended...

...One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation...

...However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny...

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. 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.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won’t hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.

---

source

moAr on t3h subject

So, TLDR, he's saying marriage benefits are decided by the state, marriage definition is decided by the church and neither are decided by the Feds.

That's fine. Marriage is a religious institution and I am in favor of states determining the benefits.

The NEXT FIGHT is for people who don't want to abide by the guidelines of the religious institutions to get equal benefits for a legal partnership, same sex or otherwise, as the married couples, and this fight can be fought on a state level under Ron Paul. Which would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Or, even better, how about leave the issue in the hands of individuals with their doctors? I really don't see how people can make the 'rights' argument with the abortion issue and not take it to its logical conclusion. If it's not the federal government's business, then it's not the state government's business either.

---

you only say this because you live in the bible belt. You wouldn't give a shit if you lived out in cali

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-K

Of course, like g0zen said, why would it be the state's business either?

---

idealy it shouldn't be. But practically, it is a good option. So at least then you can live where you want, and I don't know, get in your car and drive to a place where it is legal to get it done if you need it. That way, everyone gets to pretend like they got their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

you only say this because you live in the bible belt. You wouldn't give a shit if you lived out in cali

---

No, IronPlant, I say it because it's true. Doesn't matter whether I'm in the Bible Belt or California.

roflcopters @ SpoDaddy going through all of the neo-con talking points used all over the Internet to try and fuck up Ron Paul's momentum. I'm especially curious where the "young liberal support" line came from, because it didn't come from this thread, any scientific polling, or even any web-based polling.

I like knowing that Ron Paul makes the Fox News parroters so insecure.

Tommy Tallarico

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

No, IronPlant, I say it because it's true.

---

You do know that you look like a pompous ass every time you spell out that old nick name, right?

I mean, I don't care that you look like one, cause I think you are one anyway, but I just thought you'd like to know about how you present yourself to the rest of the board.

I support Tommy Tallarico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

You do know that you look like a pompous ass every time you spell out that old nick name, right?

I mean, I don't care that you look like one, cause I think you are one anyway, but I just thought you'd like to know about how you present yourself to the rest of the board.

---

ButtPlant?