Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Ron Paul senior adviser on DOMA

Of course, DOMA is unconstitutional, since marriage is none of the federal government's business. Under the present system, it is a state issue. Of course, it is actually none of any government's business. Marriage--like every other contract--should be privatized, with people free to make the contracts they choose, so long as no one else's rights are violated.

It was an ill day when government began to take marriage over in the 18th century. Marriage antedates government, and unlike government, is socially beneficial.

The extension of federal payments to new classes is an unhappy development, but typical of the supremes. And note that the idea that nine lawyers can determine constitutionality is a usurpation and mentioned nowhere in the constitution.

The constitution itself was a coup, marking a huge step-up in central government power. If we are to be saddled with a national government, let it be under the far-more libertarian articles of confederation.

When something like marriage is made a matter of state, it's a license to stick your nose into other people's business. When it's private, you need not worry if some people want polygamy, or gay marriage, or Protestant marriage, or Catholic marriage, or Hindu marriage. Live and let live is possible. The state, on the other hand, always seeks to divide and rule.

----

I'm sure most posters are aware that marriage laws were created to stop miscegenation. Those white boys marryin' black girls was nuthin' but trouble!

by Anonymousreply 2007/09/2013

"It was an ill day when government began to take marriage over in the 18th century. Marriage antedates government, and unlike government, is socially beneficial."

Very odd that anyone pursues a career he declares has no social benefit.

by Anonymousreply 106/26/2013

So much ignorance, so little time.

by Anonymousreply 206/26/2013

Whats the point of having a contract if you wont let the courts enforce the contract?

by Anonymousreply 306/26/2013

"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." - Ron Paul

"I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act." - Ron Paul

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution." - Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 406/26/2013

R5, you're cray-cray enough for all of us. Good lord. You utterly lack any self-awareness, as you accuse others of what is true of yourself. Given actual quotes, you deny them. It's hilarious to watch you spin.

by Anonymousreply 606/27/2013

"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." - Ron Paul

"I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman." - Ron Paul

Ron Paul sponsored the Family Protection Act, which “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.”

Ron Paul hired Mike Heath, who chaired the anti-gay group, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, as director of his Iowa campaign in 2011.

"Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected." – Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 706/27/2013

Ron Paul flyer from last year. If this is what you call someone who supports gay marriage, you are truly an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 806/27/2013

However, Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.

“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.”

“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”

In his newest book, Liberty Defined, Paul’s chapter on “Marriage” states, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” He adds, “There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.”

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”

by Anonymousreply 906/27/2013

[quote]your hand picked quotes will never work.

TRANSLATION: I dont care what he actually said because I live in fantasy world where where night is day, up is down and cats chase dogs.

by Anonymousreply 1006/27/2013

[quote]If we are to be saddled with a national government, let it be under the far-more libertarian articles of confederation.

Or maybe a theocracy?

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." – Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 1106/27/2013

[quote]Paul has ... repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.

And yet he was a co-sponsor for something called the Marriage Protection Act. He also said if he was in Congress at the time, he would have voted for DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 1206/27/2013

[quote]your hand picked quotes will never work.

As opposed to what, machine picked quotes?

If Ron Paul doesn't want to be quoted writing these things, why does he write them?

It's not like he think no one will see them - he doesn't believe in the Constitutional right to privacy.

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution." - Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 1306/27/2013

[quote]Or maybe a theocracy?

Yes, maybe a theocracy.

"I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all." - Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 1406/27/2013

Once again, the OP quotes someone else's work without attributing it (see link).

[quote]Please stomp your feet and scream- your hand picked quotes will never work.

Well, actually, they do, since they make Ron Paul's position quite clear, in his own words, as compared to the wishful thinking you engage in, unsupported by anything resembling actual data. We know the difference.

[quote]The fact that Ron Paul is a champion of gay marriage

ROFL.... Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

[quote]makes you angry, and trying to say he isn't makes you look foolish.

Really? Telling the truth makes him look foolish? To the contrary, he comes out looking just fine. Now you, on the other hand....

by Anonymousreply 1506/27/2013

R5, is Ron Paul gay now? How could a straight man possibly be the 'best spokesman' for gay rights?

He doesn't need them, we do. We fully know and experience life as gay men and women, I would surely hope we are our best representatives.

by Anonymousreply 1606/27/2013

Poor, sad OP. He has been trying for days to make Ron Paul happen and its just not sticking. A big part of the problem is OP seems totally clueless about where Paul stands on many key issues. It doesn't help that he becomes hostile and dismissive when the others reveal the truth. OP, you're not doing Paul any favors, in fact its just the opposite. Countless people who were unfamiliar with what Paul stands for are learning the truth thanks to those who have responded to your threads and presented the facts you wish to ignore. And that a Paul supporter comes across as so delusional, so dishonest and so removed from reality only further alienates people.

by Anonymousreply 1706/27/2013

We had a war, and The Article of Confederation lost.

They also tried a less federalist system before The Constitution was fully drafted and implemented, and it failed.

Libertarianism fails. Every time.

This question has been answered. Those that cling to the failed system are incapable of learning from history. Or realizing that their ideas have already been long rejected, and do not belong as part of our system of government.

After the civil war, we went from "These United States" to "THE United States"... out of many, one.

The strong federal government won a long time ago. Get over it. Or move to another country. Because I'm getting sick of your ignorant, selfish shit.

by Anonymousreply 1806/27/2013

"is Ron Paul gay now? How could a straight man possibly be the 'best spokesman' for gay rights?

He doesn't need them, we do. We fully know and experience life as gay men and women, I would surely hope we are our best representatives."

What a derail. Paul is a terrible spokesperson for gay rights because he doesn't support them.

But his being straight has nothing to do with it. And as for people who fully know and experience life as gay men and women, a great many of them are in the closet, homophobes and in government.

by Anonymousreply 1907/09/2013

Not sure what you're getting at, R19. I wrote that post specifically in response to R5 in this thread. I didn't mean to imply straight people can't get involved, just that beyond supporting friends, family, fellow citizens/humans, they gain little from gay rights.

What homophobic closet-cases in government has to do with this, is lost on me. I wouldn't call anyone denying their sexual identity's expression, 'fully knowing and experiencing' anything.

by Anonymousreply 2007/09/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.