My bf told me I sounded like Ron Paul and other Libertarians saying the solution is to remove ALL marriage from govt, and only keep NEUTRAL civil contracts that don't specify or restrict by social relationships, as long as the two partners agree to the civil partnership and the legal terms.
I looked it up, and found these quotes below.
Interesting how Paul states he is for traditional marriage, and even endorses DOMA and marriage policies decided democratically on the state level. I wouldn't take it that far, to endorse DOMA or bans on gay marriage which I find equally biased and discriminatory by creed as the beliefs they are trying to guard against. He even supports bans on sodomy which I find to be a private matter.
Even though I arrive at the same conclusion as Paul, that the state should not decide but the people should be free to define their own terms of marriage,
I approach it from the other angle, where I support gay marriage as part of free exercise of religion that nobody can ban. But for the state and govt levels, because people have different views and beliefs, that is why I agree with Paul and others that terms of marriage should be kept private, and not decided by the state and certainly not by federal govt.
It's interesting that although we support opposite sides of the gay marriage debate, we both agree that ideally marriage should be kept as a private decision and not determined by the state. We agree on what would prevent the conflicts from becoming a govt issue, by keeping it private to begin with. I agree with that!
========================================
Ron Paul Personally opposed to same-sex marriage but . News LifeSite
The Texas Congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate has a consistent record of supporting each state’s right to define marriage for itself: opposing attempts to overturn state anti-sodomy laws on one hand and to implement a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage on the other.
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!”
---------------------------------
Paul’s views are similar to those of two other Republican presidential hopefuls. Fellow Libertarian New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has said, “I support gay unions. I think the government ought to get out of the marriage business.” Former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer has agreed, saying, “Each state has a right to determine how it defines a marriage.”
However, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has strongly challenged Paul, saying: “It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are OK…We can’t have 50 marriage laws.”
Paul’s position may receive more scrutiny because of initiatives such as a New Hampshire bill that would legalize civil unions between any two consenting adults, including siblings.
-------------------------------------
I looked it up, and found these quotes below.
Interesting how Paul states he is for traditional marriage, and even endorses DOMA and marriage policies decided democratically on the state level. I wouldn't take it that far, to endorse DOMA or bans on gay marriage which I find equally biased and discriminatory by creed as the beliefs they are trying to guard against. He even supports bans on sodomy which I find to be a private matter.
Even though I arrive at the same conclusion as Paul, that the state should not decide but the people should be free to define their own terms of marriage,
I approach it from the other angle, where I support gay marriage as part of free exercise of religion that nobody can ban. But for the state and govt levels, because people have different views and beliefs, that is why I agree with Paul and others that terms of marriage should be kept private, and not decided by the state and certainly not by federal govt.
It's interesting that although we support opposite sides of the gay marriage debate, we both agree that ideally marriage should be kept as a private decision and not determined by the state. We agree on what would prevent the conflicts from becoming a govt issue, by keeping it private to begin with. I agree with that!
========================================
Ron Paul Personally opposed to same-sex marriage but . News LifeSite
The Texas Congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate has a consistent record of supporting each state’s right to define marriage for itself: opposing attempts to overturn state anti-sodomy laws on one hand and to implement a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage on the other.
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!”
---------------------------------
Paul’s views are similar to those of two other Republican presidential hopefuls. Fellow Libertarian New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has said, “I support gay unions. I think the government ought to get out of the marriage business.” Former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer has agreed, saying, “Each state has a right to determine how it defines a marriage.”
However, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has strongly challenged Paul, saying: “It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are OK…We can’t have 50 marriage laws.”
Paul’s position may receive more scrutiny because of initiatives such as a New Hampshire bill that would legalize civil unions between any two consenting adults, including siblings.
-------------------------------------
