Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[rightwinger]

Personally, I don't care about polygamy. If it involves consenting adults, I don't care what marriage relationship they come up with

There are no laws against a married man having a mistress on the side and having a family with her. Even the former Governor of California did it

But if he tries to legitimize both families...he goes to jail

In that case, it was also fraud since his wife didn't know or agree to the other relationship, no?

I have yet to see a man or woman cheating on their spouse charged with fraud

Even if polygamy were allowed, I doubt if there would be a significant number of polygamous relationships. Socially, we are just not wired that way

 

[Texanmike]

Personally, I don't care about polygamy. If it involves consenting adults, I don't care what marriage relationship they come up with

There are no laws against a married man having a mistress on the side and having a family with her. Even the former Governor of California did it

But if he tries to legitimize both families...he goes to jail

Are you saying that (federal) government should stay out of it?

No

The government has to be involved in marriage. Why?
Because, when marriages disolve, it is the government who gets called in to sort out the pieces

Government doesn't have to be involved in marriage. That is a preposterous idea. Marriage in all likelyhood does pre-date government.

As for sorting out the pieces, its like any other lawsuit.

Mike

 

[Ravi]

Personally, I don't care about polygamy. If it involves consenting adults, I don't care what marriage relationship they come up with

There are no laws against a married man having a mistress on the side and having a family with her. Even the former Governor of California did it

But if he tries to legitimize both families...he goes to jail

In that case, it was also fraud since his wife didn't know or agree to the other relationship, no?

I have yet to see a man or woman cheating on their spouse charged with fraud

Even if polygamy were allowed, I doubt if there would be a significant number of polygamous relationships. Socially, we are just not wired that way

I always thought divorce settlements were based on which part committed fraud upon the other.

 

[Uncensored2008]

With all due respect to Mr. Paul, he's a fruitcake.

Who cares? I mean, seriously?

You're a mindless partisan hack. You attack enemies of the party and support party members. It isn't like you have a set of values or ethical rules.

Of course you attack Paul, you attack all non-party members.

 

[Texanmike]

In that case, it was also fraud since his wife didn't know or agree to the other relationship, no?

I have yet to see a man or woman cheating on their spouse charged with fraud

Even if polygamy were allowed, I doubt if there would be a significant number of polygamous relationships. Socially, we are just not wired that way

I always thought divorce settlements were based on which part committed fraud upon the other.

Not entirely.

Mike

 

[rightwinger]

Are you saying that (federal) government should stay out of it?

No

The government has to be involved in marriage. Why?
Because, when marriages disolve, it is the government who gets called in to sort out the pieces

State government yes, federal - no.

Federal government has very little involvement in marriage right now other than tax breaks for married people and survivorship for federal benefits

I think that changes with gay marriage. People are Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans. They move freely around the country without legal incumberances. When a gay married couple moves to another state and their relationship no longer is valid, that creates a large number of legal issues. Especially if children are involved

 

[Ame®icano]

In that case, it was also fraud since his wife didn't know or agree to the other relationship, no?

I have yet to see a man or woman cheating on their spouse charged with fraud

Even if polygamy were allowed, I doubt if there would be a significant number of polygamous relationships. Socially, we are just not wired that way

I always thought divorce settlements were based on which part committed fraud upon the other.

In some states yes, in some is not important at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would your opinion be different if she knew and agreed?

Her opinion would be different if he were a democrat.

 

[Texanmike]

No

The government has to be involved in marriage. Why?
Because, when marriages disolve, it is the government who gets called in to sort out the pieces

State government yes, federal - no.

Federal government has very little involvement in marriage right now other than tax breaks for married people and survivorship for federal benefits

I think that changes with gay marriage. People are Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans. They move freely around the country without legal incumberances. When a gay married couple moves to another state and their relationship no longer is valid, that creates a large number of legal issues. Especially if children are involved

This is not entirely true.

Different states have laws regarding what pets you can own, the ability of a person to own a gun and his freedoms with that gun. (Don't move to california if you have a ferret). The requiremnents for cars is different as well. Don't forget your ability to visit mary-jane for your medicinal purposes.

Just like everything else, there are choices to make. Where you move is your decision and there will be differences in laws (that some would consider every bit as fundamental, or even more than marriage) which you must consider when you move somewhere.

Mike

 

[rightwinger]

State government yes, federal - no.

Federal government has very little involvement in marriage right now other than tax breaks for married people and survivorship for federal benefits

I think that changes with gay marriage. People are Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans. They move freely around the country without legal incumberances. When a gay married couple moves to another state and their relationship no longer is valid, that creates a large number of legal issues. Especially if children are involved

This is not entirely true.

Different states have laws regarding what pets you can own, the ability of a person to own a gun and his freedoms with that gun. (Don't move to california if you have a ferret). The requiremnents for cars is different as well. Don't forget your ability to visit mary-jane for your medicinal purposes.

Just like everything else, there are choices to make. Where you move is your decision and there will be differences in laws (that some would consider every bit as fundamental, or even more than marriage) which you must consider when you move somewhere.

Mike

Families are not guns. You can leave your guns behind, you cannot leave your family

What happens to married gays in the military when they get sent to states that don't accept gay marriage? What happens when you get in a severe car accident in a state theat doesn't recognize your marriage? What happens to kids in that relationship?

The federal government will eventually get involved. It will be like when we had free states and slave states.....you can't have mix and match rights

 

[Texanmike]

Federal government has very little involvement in marriage right now other than tax breaks for married people and survivorship for federal benefits

I think that changes with gay marriage. People are Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans. They move freely around the country without legal incumberances. When a gay married couple moves to another state and their relationship no longer is valid, that creates a large number of legal issues. Especially if children are involved

This is not entirely true.

Different states have laws regarding what pets you can own, the ability of a person to own a gun and his freedoms with that gun. (Don't move to california if you have a ferret). The requiremnents for cars is different as well. Don't forget your ability to visit mary-jane for your medicinal purposes.

Just like everything else, there are choices to make. Where you move is your decision and there will be differences in laws (that some would consider every bit as fundamental, or even more than marriage) which you must consider when you move somewhere.

Mike

Families are not guns. You can leave your guns behind, you cannot leave your family

What happens to married gays in the military when they get sent to states that don't accept gay marriage? What happens when you get in a severe car accident in a state theat doesn't recognize your marriage? What happens to kids in that relationship?

The federal government will eventually get involved. It will be like when we had free states and slave states.....you can't have mix and match rights

Gay military members will most likely retain their original state of residence. Get in a car accident in a state that doesn't recognize your marriage and the laws regarding last will and testament from your state of residence apply.

Families are not guns, you are right. I am a big gun owner though and I flat out will not (unless I get orders) move to a state, city, town, street or whatever that will not allow me my CHL privilages. If that is an easy choice for me to make for my guns, why is it not an easy choice for someone to make over family?

We do mix and match rights. The right to bear arms is an enumerated right in the constitution and yet the laws regarding bearing arms are as different as night and day all over the country.

Mike

 

[rightwinger]

Families are not guns, you are right. I am a big gun owner though and I flat out will not (unless I get orders) move to a state, city, town, street or whatever that will not allow me my CHL privilages. If that is an easy choice for me to make for my guns, why is it not an easy choice for someone to make over family?

Glad you have your priorities right

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Children, animals, and trees cannot consent.

Why do you nuts keep making this stupid non-point?

Ravi's right here. Marriage is essentially a contract, and one can't enter into a contract with a child, an animal, or an inanimate object.

 

[Missourian]

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.

Whether you have an opinion or not is irrelevant.

The argument you are making is for the individual ability to marry who you love.

The polygamist rebuttal is, how can you give these special privileges to two individuals, but not three?

Let me put it another way.

If the government doesn't possess the ability to regulate that marriage is between a man a woman, it doesn't possess the authority to regulate against polygamy, or incestuous marriage.


Rebuttal?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Whether you have an opinion or not is irrelevant.

The argument you are making is for the individual ability to marry who you love.

The polygamist rebuttal is, how can you give these special privileges to two individuals, but not three?

Let me put it another way.

If the government doesn't possess the ability to regulate that marriage is between a man a woman, it doesn't possess the authority to regulate against polygamy, or incest.


Rebuttal?

Nice try, Mo.

I haven't even brought love into the situation. I'm saying the government can't disallow any two people from entering into a contract that has the same benefits as heterosexual marriage without violating equal protection.

A polygamous relationship is not allowed for anyone, therefore the government is treating everyone the same in that instance. It is not favoring one couple over another couple as it is by disallowing gay marriage.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Whether you have an opinion or not is irrelevant.

The argument you are making is for the individual ability to marry who you love.

The polygamist rebuttal is, how can you give these special privileges to two individuals, but not three?

Let me put it another way.

If the government doesn't possess the ability to regulate that marriage is between a man a woman, it doesn't possess the authority to regulate against polygamy, or incest.


Rebuttal?

Nice try, Mo.

I haven't even brought love into the situation. I'm saying the government can't disallow any two people from entering into a contract that has the same benefits as heterosexual marriage without violating equal protection.

A polygamous relationship is not allowed for anyone, therefore the government is treating everyone the same in that instance. It is not favoring one couple over another couple as it is by disallowing gay marriage.

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

 

[Ravi]

Whether you have an opinion or not is irrelevant.

The argument you are making is for the individual ability to marry who you love.

The polygamist rebuttal is, how can you give these special privileges to two individuals, but not three?

Let me put it another way.

If the government doesn't possess the ability to regulate that marriage is between a man a woman, it doesn't possess the authority to regulate against polygamy, or incest.


Rebuttal?

Nice try, Mo.

I haven't even brought love into the situation. I'm saying the government can't disallow any two people from entering into a contract that has the same benefits as heterosexual marriage without violating equal protection.

A polygamous relationship is not allowed for anyone, therefore the government is treating everyone the same in that instance. It is not favoring one couple over another couple as it is by disallowing gay marriage.

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nice try, Mo.

I haven't even brought love into the situation. I'm saying the government can't disallow any two people from entering into a contract that has the same benefits as heterosexual marriage without violating equal protection.

A polygamous relationship is not allowed for anyone, therefore the government is treating everyone the same in that instance. It is not favoring one couple over another couple as it is by disallowing gay marriage.

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?

Im not able to marry a man either, and Im not gay.

Why are my rights being trampled?

Exactly..... no ones rights are being trampled.

NONE of us can marry the same sex. NOBODY , I think that means all of us

Is that the same stupid argument Ron Paul makes?

You called it a stupid argument when Infidel made it, but now you make the same argument when it comes to polygamy.

One could say that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage.

 

[Ravi]

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

Im not able to marry a man either, and Im not gay.

Why are my rights being trampled?

Exactly..... no ones rights are being trampled.

NONE of us can marry the same sex. NOBODY , I think that means all of us

Is that the same stupid argument Ron Paul makes?

You called it a stupid argument when Infidel made it, but now you make the same argument when it comes to polygamy.

One could say that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage.

That was a stupid argument because he should be able to marry a man if he so chooses.

 

[Too Tall]

Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?

Why would he not want them to have the same benefits as anybody else? He says they can define marriage however they want, and voted to repeal DADT.

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.

States, not the federal government issue marriage licenses, and states make the rules about whether you can or cannot marry your sister or your brother. Let me know when I have to get a license to marry from a bureaucrat in Washington DC.

I would have a big problem with that!