Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[Ravi]

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.

Children, animals, and trees cannot consent.

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

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Can you define what couple is?

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Just asking if you read the whole post because I don't think the issue is group rights. I don't see how mandating the number of people a person can marry is different from the selection of whom someone weds.

Seems to me that they are both choices that a person can make that neither affect me nor do I care about them and I don't think that the government should have any place in making those decisions.

Mike

 

[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

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

Oh, and who decide who can make consent?

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

 

[Sallow]

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?

Oh, and who decide who can make consent?

The same people we elect to write laws..that's who.

Don't like it? There's tons of other places on the globe to high tail it to.

 

[Ame®icano]

Children, animals, and trees cannot consent.

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

Oh, and who decide who can make consent?

The same people we elect to write laws..that's who.

Don't like it? There's tons of other places on the globe to high tail it to.

That's basically what Ron Paul is saying.

Federal government should stay out of state's business.

You don't like law in one state (as long law is constitutional), move to another.

 

[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?

 

[Sallow]

Oh, and who decide who can make consent?

The same people we elect to write laws..that's who.

Don't like it? There's tons of other places on the globe to high tail it to.

That's basically what Ron Paul is saying.

Federal government should stay out of state's business.

You don't like law in one state (as long law is constitutional), move to another.

That's not what the Constitution is about.

Which was really settled twice..by the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

States are not supreme to the Federal government.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

There is no law against what he did.

It was immoral, but not illegal.

Would your opinion be different if she knew and agreed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm fairly confident that he is very familiar with the document.

I'm also confident that the OP is not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So let me get this straight. He's saying states could have slavery but they won't so we shouldn't worry about it?

No, that isn't what he was saying.

You're just too stupid to follow along....

 

[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

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

 

[grunt11b]

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?

He compared polygamy to slavery as in "The states would never even think about legalizing it in this day and age". Of course he knows it would be a states issue, just like marriage, not a federal one.

 

[grunt11b]

Silly Wabbutt! All Tea Party/libertarian types of course know the constitution.
They just prefer to ignore certain parts of it.

Like which parts? Example please.

 

[Ame®icano]

The same people we elect to write laws..that's who.

Don't like it? There's tons of other places on the globe to high tail it to.

That's basically what Ron Paul is saying.

Federal government should stay out of state's business.

You don't like law in one state (as long law is constitutional), move to another.

That's not what the Constitution is about.

Which was really settled twice..by the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

States are not supreme to the Federal government.

I haven't said they are.

If state law is within federal constitution boundaries, then it's legal law.

If federal constitution doesn't cover some area(s), then it's left to the states to decide... You know that already, right?

 

[grunt11b]

Silly Wabbutt! All Tea Party/libertarian types of course know the constitution.
They just prefer to ignore certain parts of it.

As long as they have their second amendment remedies, thats all they need to know

The second amendment secures all the rest of the amendments.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

State government yes, federal - no.

 

[Missourian]

Children, animals, and trees cannot consent.

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

Oh, and who decide who can make consent?

The same people we elect to write laws..that's who.

Don't like it? There's tons of other places on the globe to high tail it to.

Those are the same people who wrote the law forbidding same sex marriage...

So follow you own advice and high tail it.