Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Missourian]

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.

But you don't have a problem with Obama saying HE is opposed to gay marriage.
..
.

..
.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

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

Mike

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

But you don't have a problem with Obama saying HE is opposed to gay marriage.
..
.

..
.

Sure I do. He is also wrong.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

From Liberty Defined, Pg. 183 - 184:

"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

 

[Paulie]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 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?

 

[Paulie]

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.

Well then it shouldn't license marriage either. There should be no "benefits" to being married. That's what causes the problem with the debate in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

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.

From Liberty Defined, Pg. 183 - 184:

"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

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?

 

[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 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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If Gays want to marry it should be up to the states to decide that matter for themsleves.

We ARE the United STATES of America not the United CENTRAL GOVERNMENT of America.

 

[Paulie]

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?

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

From Liberty Defined, Pg. 183 - 184:

"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

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.

 

[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.

Well then it shouldn't license marriage either. There should be no "benefits" to being married. That's what causes the problem with the debate in the first place.

That's probably true. But somehow I don't see a time when those benefits are done away with as it is and always has been social engineering from a conservative standpoint.

 

[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?

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

Tax benefits.

 

[Ravi]

From Liberty Defined, Pg. 183 - 184:

"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

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.

 

[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?

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?