Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[Texanmike]

Correct me if I'm wrong. He believes that individual states should make the rules on marriage. Therefore, in his view, a state could deny someone the same rights that others have.

I have a big problem with that.

Well if you look at the issue from a constitutional perspective then that is correct. I'm guessing most states would need to amend their constitutions to allow them any say whatsoever in defining marriage, but that's how federalism works. That would certainly be preferable to a one size fits all federal decision, but it's not the best decision. As I've already told you, Ron Paul says all levels of government should stay out of the marriage business completely and allow people to define marriage for themselves.

If your last sentence is true, fine. But I suspect it isn't exactly correct.

His last sentence is correct. I have heard him speak about it twice. His position is that he definitely doesn't want the federal government to be involved. He believes (correctly) that the institution of marriage predates even government itself.

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 and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

I think its pretty clear that the he sees marriage as a religious/social issue that the government should stay out of. He goes on to explain his support for various "stay the hell out of marriage federal government" acts. Here's the link. I guess you could interpret that as "he wants states to have authority over marriage" but I don't think thats really accurate. I think he just accepts that there are no getting them out. I tend to agree. I don't want the discussion at all. I would prefer 360 million different views on marriage but that won't be allowed to happen. As such, I would definitely rather have 50 different sanctions than one universal sanction.

The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea by Ron Paul

Hope that helps.

Mike

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay. I'd still like him to clarify his stance on states and slavery.

His "stance" on states and slavery has been made clear in this thread multiple times. He was simply drawing a parallel between the likelihood of the states allowing polygamy and the states allowing slavery.

Again, that's a wus answer.

I don't know what a wus answer is.

 

[Ravi]

Why should it be reduced to only two consenting adults? Since polygamy was brought up in this thread why can't consenting adults be in a marriage with more than one spouse?

Because we already have a situation where two people are granted special marriage benefits. We don't have a situation where a group of people get special marriage benefits.

Then those "special marriage benefits" should be given to polygamists as well, right? They're being denied their rights. Who are we to pick and choose which marriages are legit?

They aren't being denied rights that are granted to others.

But gay people are.

 

[Texanmike]

Correct me if I'm wrong. He believes that individual states should make the rules on marriage. Therefore, in his view, a state could deny someone the same rights that others have.

I have a big problem with that.

What's the point of having individual states with borders and their own laws, if the feds are just going to pick and choose which laws they're going to allow them to have? Just erase the borders and call it the United State of America.

You having a problem with it is ok, and the founders wanted you to be able to. But they also wanted people who don't have a problem with things you have a problem with, to have a voice too.

What's the point of having any rights if a state can deny them?

I would point you to my post in the 14th amendment thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-cant-be-used-14.html#post3992973

Mike

 

[Paulie]

What's the point of having any rights if a state can deny them?

What rights have you been guaranteed by the federal government regarding marriage?

Tax benefits.

Ok, so then it's not an issue of who can marry who, it's simply a matter of changing the tax code. I'm fine with that.

Take away the financial benefits involved in being married, and you take away the whole marriage debate, because most opponents of gay marriage couldn't care less if 2 gay adults go and get married by their church, justice of the peace, what have you.

And it's not just tax benefits. Married couples have many other benefits that single individuals don't have access to. Why should it be like that at all?

Could it be perhaps, that the government knows that married couples are more likely to contribute more to the economy?

The whole fucking debate is ridiculous on many levels.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because we already have a situation where two people are granted special marriage benefits. We don't have a situation where a group of people get special marriage benefits.

Then those "special marriage benefits" should be given to polygamists as well, right? They're being denied their rights. Who are we to pick and choose which marriages are legit?

They aren't being denied rights that are granted to others.

But gay people are.

Of course they are. They're being denied on a larger scale than even gay people. At least gay people can be married in some states.

 

[Paulie]

The federal government should not be recognizing marriages AT ALL.

Stay out of the marriage business, and no one gets slighted. No benefits for hetero couples, no benefits for gay couples. You just have your marriage in private and leave the rest of the taxpayers out of it.

 

[Texanmike]

So what about marrying cousins? Is that an issue? Should all states have the same rules?

Mike

In my opinion, any two consenting adults shouldn't be denied the same benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

I don't think the government should license sex.

Why should it be reduced to only two consenting adults? Since polygamy was brought up in this thread why can't consenting adults be in a marriage with more than one spouse?

This is why I like either no government involved or having it done at the state level if everyone feels that someone must do it. I would much rather have the option to, if it is a make or break issue for me, move to a state where my views are compatable. I see absolutely no point in making it a federal issue. Honestly, it probably wouldn't affect where I move to one bit but I see absolutely no reason to condemn half the country to dissatisfaction over this issue.

Mike

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The federal government should not be recognizing marriages AT ALL.

Stay out of the marriage business, and no one gets slighted. No benefits for hetero couples, no benefits for gay couples. You just have your marriage in private and leave the rest of the taxpayers out of it.

Well I'm not going to complain about anybody getting a tax break regardless of the reason, but I agree with the premise.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In my opinion, any two consenting adults shouldn't be denied the same benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

I don't think the government should license sex.

Why should it be reduced to only two consenting adults? Since polygamy was brought up in this thread why can't consenting adults be in a marriage with more than one spouse?

This is why I like either no government involved or having it done at the state level if everyone feels that someone must do it. I would much rather have the option to, if it is a make or break issue for me, move to a state where my views are compatable. I see absolutely no point in making it a federal issue. Honestly, it probably wouldn't affect where I move to one bit but I see absolutely no reason to condemn half the country to dissatisfaction over this issue.

Mike

And of course that's the idea behind federalism. What might be right for Massachusetts may not be right for Texas. I personally would take it further, however, and simply say that the religions should decide for themselves. I don't even want the states involved.

 

[Paulie]

The federal government should not be recognizing marriages AT ALL.

Stay out of the marriage business, and no one gets slighted. No benefits for hetero couples, no benefits for gay couples. You just have your marriage in private and leave the rest of the taxpayers out of it.

Well I'm not going to complain about anybody getting a tax break regardless of the reason, but I agree with the premise.

I don't even agree with the tax structure anyway. All the exemptions, loopholes, write offs, etc just complicate matters. I'm at the point where I'd prefer the national flat tax, which would make the marriage/financial issue moot.

 

[Sallow]

I was watching the Republican debates in Ames, and one response caught my attention (I can't find a transcript, so excuse me if the details are a bit off). The moderators seemed to note that in light of New York's recognition of gay marriage there was a tension between federalism/10th Amendment/leaving things to the states.

Ron Paul was responding to a question then about whether the states could legalize polygamy under the Constitution (I believe the answer is yes). He compared polygamy to slavery and asserted that modern US states wouldn't do grossly immoral things. It struck me as odd because the right to own slaves is the only individual right, under the 13th Amendment, denied to people (and denied rightly, of course). As such, Paul's answer made little sense, since he was comparing polygamy, unmentioned in the Constitution, to the single practice explicitly banned (other than the defunct ban on liquor in the 18th Amendment).

I've never claimed to be a Constitutional expert, but I do know the 13th Amendment, whereas Paul seems to have forgotten it in the heat of the debate. He was referred to by the moderators as a Constitutional expert, but I've seen no evidence that he is. Well, I suppose he is no Christine O'Donnell, the Senate candidate who was unfamiliar with the Jeffersonian interpretation of church-state relations under the Constitution. Perhaps he is expert compared to his colleagues in Congress. But is this gynecologist turned politician really an expert in the sense of having a technical knowledge of the Constitution that surpasses, say, a pretty smart lawyer?

With all due respect to Mr. Paul, he's a fruitcake. He debates in his own mind well worn issues and goes off on tangents that put him into the Lyndon Larouche zone.

There is an element of pragmatism to him when it comes to bringing home the pork..which is probably why he's served in the Congress for so long.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The federal government should not be recognizing marriages AT ALL.

Stay out of the marriage business, and no one gets slighted. No benefits for hetero couples, no benefits for gay couples. You just have your marriage in private and leave the rest of the taxpayers out of it.

Well I'm not going to complain about anybody getting a tax break regardless of the reason, but I agree with the premise.

I don't even agree with the tax structure anyway. All the exemptions, loopholes, write offs, etc just complicate matters. I'm at the point where I'd prefer the national flat tax, which would make the marriage/financial issue moot.

Maybe, but they also save people money. I'd say give us more loopholes.

 

[Missourian]

Correct me if I'm wrong. He believes that individual states should make the rules on marriage. Therefore, in his view, a state could deny someone the same rights that others have.

I have a big problem with that.

So what about marrying cousins? Is that an issue? Should all states have the same rules?

Mike

In my opinion, any two consenting adults shouldn't be denied the same benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

I don't think the government should license sex.

Why just two?

Out of one side of your mouth you are saying "What right do you have to define a marriage as between one man and one woman"...

Then out of the other side you're saying "Marriage is only to be between two people".

The argument you but forward is that gays rights are being infringed because they are not allowed to marry who they love.

But that same argument applies to multiple marriages...they love the people they want to marry.

So why do you approve of one and yet oppose the other?

 

[Paulie]

Well I'm not going to complain about anybody getting a tax break regardless of the reason, but I agree with the premise.

I don't even agree with the tax structure anyway. All the exemptions, loopholes, write offs, etc just complicate matters. I'm at the point where I'd prefer the national flat tax, which would make the marriage/financial issue moot.

Maybe, but they also save people money. I'd say give us more loopholes.

I could save more money with a flat tax than I could trying to fit into loopholes in the income tax. But I'm a saver by nature, so a sales tax is more in my favor.

 

[Texanmike]

The tax benefit issue is the best example of how ridiculous the tax code is and why behavior modification through taxation needs to be stopped.

I think it is utterly stupid that the argument for forcing a state to acknowledge a couple (gay, straight, incest, multiple partners or whatever) is that there is a tax advantage. Why in the hell is there a tax advantage to being married?

In fact, why doesn't the government just do what it should do in this case? Uphold contracts between two individuals and stop playing favorites? That will NEVER happen though because the left wingers and right wingers will never be content with actual liberty.

We are trying to tell people who they can and cannot marry? Really? Its like everything else. You can put this into your body; but not this. You can't buy raw milk?

Look in my own private life, I'm a right winger. Religious (or with religious influence at least) I don't drink, I haven't touched an illegal substance since I was a teenager, I don't have multiple partners or do anything crazy. etc. etc. etc. I have a rather boring life. My son lives with me and I won't allow a woman to spend the night if he's in my house- i'm crazy about my morality... but it is just that it is MY morality.

Sorry for the rant.

Mike

 

[Ravi]

What's the point of having individual states with borders and their own laws, if the feds are just going to pick and choose which laws they're going to allow them to have? Just erase the borders and call it the United State of America.

You having a problem with it is ok, and the founders wanted you to be able to. But they also wanted people who don't have a problem with things you have a problem with, to have a voice too.

What's the point of having any rights if a state can deny them?

I would point you to my post in the 14th amendment thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-cant-be-used-14.html#post3992973

Mike

You seem to be making the same argument as Kevin. Polygamy is not comparable because there is not a group of people that are granted polygamous rights. There is a group of people that are granted marriage rights.

 

[Ravi]

What rights have you been guaranteed by the federal government regarding marriage?

Tax benefits.

Ok, so then it's not an issue of who can marry who, it's simply a matter of changing the tax code. I'm fine with that.

Take away the financial benefits involved in being married, and you take away the whole marriage debate, because most opponents of gay marriage couldn't care less if 2 gay adults go and get married by their church, justice of the peace, what have you.

And it's not just tax benefits. Married couples have many other benefits that single individuals don't have access to. Why should it be like that at all?

Could it be perhaps, that the government knows that married couples are more likely to contribute more to the economy?

The whole fucking debate is ridiculous on many levels.

It will probably come down to this in the end: allowing gays the same benefits or doing away with marriage benefits period. I have a feeling the gays will win.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why should it be reduced to only two consenting adults? Since polygamy was brought up in this thread why can't consenting adults be in a marriage with more than one spouse?

Because we already have a situation where two people are granted special marriage benefits. We don't have a situation where a group of people get special marriage benefits.

Then those "special marriage benefits" should be given to polygamists as well, right? They're being denied their rights. Who are we to pick and choose which marriages are legit?

Don't forget pedophiles, animal lovers, tree lovers... they can all ask for special benefits and we can have the same discussion all over again.

 

[Ravi]

So what about marrying cousins? Is that an issue? Should all states have the same rules?

Mike

In my opinion, any two consenting adults shouldn't be denied the same benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

I don't think the government should license sex.

Why just two?

Out of one side of your mouth you are saying "What right do you have to define a marriage as between one man and one woman"...

Then out of the other side you're saying "Marriage is only to be between two people".

The argument you but forward is that gays rights are being infringed because they are not allowed to marry who they love.

But that same argument applies to multiple marriages...they love the people they want to marry.

So why do you approve of one and yet oppose the other?

I don't really have an opinion on polygamy.

What I am saying, and perhaps not saying well enough to get my point across, is that you cannot deny one COUPLE the same rights you grant to another COUPLE.