Forum Post: National Organization for Marriage Attacks Ron Paul for Supporting Gay Marraige
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 10, 2012, 3:34 p.m. EST by jaktober
(286)
from Sonoma, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
https://www.wrongonmarriage.com/
The National Organization for Marriage is running attack ads on Ron Paul because Paul believes that Gay Marriage is "Fine" and that the Government should be out of the marriage business altogether. They even site his vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The same group supports Obama, and the other GOP Candidates', stance on Marriage, calling them "Right" and Paul "Wrong."
What do you all think?
Is Paul Right that Gay Couples have the right to be married if they wish?
Or do you think Obama and the other GOP Candidates are right that marriage should be protected as only being between a man and a woman?
(Granted, Paul's personal/religious belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but his political belief is that his religious belief doesn't matter, and that every individual is guaranteed equality under the law).
Why answer any question.
This is the lamest of lame "arguments" that gets bandied about every goddamn election, with the express purpose of tying up "debate", and politicising privacy agreements between consenting adults.
Bringing this out at this point in time indicates to thinking people that you have nothing of value to add to the real election issues, and it more than ever indicates that your next drawcard will be about abortion and the right-to-life issue.
Grow some brains.
You seem to have plenty of fertiliser up where they should be.
Man I love where you're coming from, mate. God I wish I could go to Australia for awhile and shake the grotesque cynicism of current America out of my spirit! Wide open spaces; a place where people can still really SEE freedom and let it pulse through their veins. I know you may have a crappy government, but man, would I like to just ride a horse through all those open spaces and remember what real freedom feels like!
Thanks for your contribution here!
My pleasure GypsyKing.
I like how most of the trolls have given up here too.
Worth reading here again. I enjoy your contribution also. I just finished driving around the whole country, and yeah, there's plenty of what you're looking for out here. Can drive for six hours without seeing a building in some places.
I grew up that way. I used to know what real freedom was. I feel sorry for the young people today in America. Most of them never tasted real freedom, and don't even know what they're missing. Some day I hope I'll go down under, to taste what that was really like, once again:)
Please read the rules: http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
I live in California. We had a Proposition overturn a Court decision which protected Gay Marriage. This issue is very relevant; I would say it is the Civil Rights issue of our day.
And I would say it had its day decades ago.
It's a red herring and it's been used and abused by politicians ad infinitum because it divides people on religious and gender issues.
If it is a civil rights issue, it should be debated after the election, or between elections.
Tell me why it is put on the back burner for 3 years, and dragged out of the closet come election time, if it really is a civil rights issue?
It's like watching reruns of Gilligan's Island. Same crap every election.
It wasn't put on the "back burner." In 2010 we attempted to put a Proposition on the ballot in California to repeal Prop 8. Despite people supporting same sex marriage on forums and social networks, enough people did not sign the petition. In addition, the Supreme Court of Iowa made a ruling of their own deeming Same Sex Marriage protected under their Constitution (many people in Iowa want that overturned mind you). It is a constant battle. If all someone does is watch TV then it may seem like it only comes out during elections when the TV decides to talk about it.
To those who are involved and pay attention, it has been a constant issue.
If it had "its day" decades ago, why are we still fighting for it?
Hear, Hear!
Couldn't agree more
Even a stopped clock is right twice each day.
So you agree with Paul on this issue?
I agree with Barack Obama on one or two issues as well. that does not mean I would ever consider voting for either person. Each is dangerous and deranged in his own distinct way.
Who are you considering voting for?
Why should I tell that to a libertarian troll?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
[Removed]
We are just not buying the Ron Paul idiocy. Can you scum suckers ever get that through your head? I think every reference to that idiot needs to be expunged from this site, so that the un-brainwashed can get busy figuring out how to save this once great nation.
Okay...please read the rules: http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
Of course Gays should marry. Anything else would be SEXIST! It should be a federal law that forces the states to submit to the higher consciousness.
Sure, Paul is right about a few things. Most people are. But Paul is so wrong about economic policy as to make him a danger to the economic security of the nation. So what if everyone can fuck and smoke pot under a president Paul? If they are living under highway overpasses, in a Paul/libertarian economy, it will be their only pleasures.
Message to democratic party: If you don't like watching a massive migration to Ron Paul it might be time to reconsider your position on a few very important issues... and find an honest candidate.
Just because Ron Paul supporters think that they can con the 2008 Obama supporters the way Obama did in 2008, this does not mean that the 2008 Obama supporters are as stupid as Ron Paul' supporters think they are. More likely many will stay at home or vote for people who better reflect their social justice values. Ron Paul is inimical to social justice.
[Removed]
It's funny how people can twist any situation in politics to fit their POV.
Ron Paul says that marriage should be a state issues. Conservatives use that as proof that he supports gay marriage and liberals will use it as proof that he is against it.
I've seen the same thing on drugs. Conservatives claim that the only reason young people support paul is because he wants drugs legalized yet I see liberals saying he's anti drugs because of states rights.
Liberals bash paul for being pro-life yet evangelicals bash him for being pro abortion because of his states rights stance.
I guess both sides oppose the states rights approach. I'm a states rights guy on a lot of issues. If it's decided on the federal level, my side might lose. If we keep it at the state level, then at least I always have the option of moving to another state.
Exactly! Great comment. It can get frustrating sometimes trying to explain that. Thank you Shadow Ranger!
Thanks for the lively discussion! Thanks to those who approached it with respect...
I'm focusing on organizing a fund-raising drive for the Green Party of California, so I won't be responding to comments on other subjects.
http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/green-party-of-california-anniversary-money-bloom-february-4th-2012/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-firm-season-1-episode-3-chapter-three/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-office-season-8-episode-11-trivia/
When Marc Jacobs and Marc by Marc Jacobs, deputy brand new out of the time, there will be many who come to join the trend and buy. Because as a fashion, undoubtedly indispensable bags Marc Jacobs Handbags and Marc Jacobs bags. They allow you to distribute mature beauty. Of course, young girls will not miss the Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbags and Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags. So, what are you waiting for? Come and have them!
I don't think he is really for gay marriage in his heart. He has to be for gay marriage, politically, or he'd be a hypocrite. How can he be libertarian and tell any taxpayer that he/she can't get married for any reason? Liberty, right? Drink your unpasteurized milk, right?
That is what I wrote. His religious belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but his political belief is that in order to protect his freedom to believe that, he must protect the freedom of gay couples to get married (if they so wish to).
Liberty is interesting isn't it? In order to protect your freedom, you must protect the freedoms of others that you may not agree with. As long as they are not infringing your own liberties, the liberties of other must be protected.
I'm glad that this election is forcing us to talk about the concept of Liberty and what it really means. This is a very "back to basics" time for humanity. Learning to grow food, mend soil, capture water, run a campaign, build a house (or a tractor)...how to communicate and work with others...yet, at the same time, as we are reinforcing our basics we are accomplishing amazing progress; 3D Printing, renewable energies, the Internet (the Internet!!!)...it truly is a beautiful world if you let it be (because it wants to be so bad...).
Okay. Just, when you're thinking about libertarianism and the liberty part of it, don't forget the part of the Constitution that talks about how the government should promote the general welfare of the American people. Free-wheeling unregulated capitalism will not promote the general welfare of the American people. It will promote the general welfare of the wealthy and will create a plutocracy. Be careful. Think hard about that. Privatizing everything would put us all at great risk for greed to take over.
I'm not suggesting pure Libertarianism. The topic of this post was Gay Marriage, and who has the right position on it.
As far as General Welfare: http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause
That is a fairly pedestrian analysis, but shows that the drafters of the Constitution didn't even agree what the General Welfare Clause entitled Congress to do.
I have no problem with the Government helping insure the health and "retirement" of its citizens. How they do it though, should be as efficient and "free" as possible.
Is an insurance mandate (along with a fine) the best way? I can't afford health insurance, should I then be fined (as is in MA, and now, in the U.S.)? Should all people be forced to pay into it through a payroll tax? Or should it be a voluntary system that gives a cheaper plan by grouping participating citizens under a "Single-Payer" and getting a better deal from insurance companies (as business already do; as was my previous insurance under my previous employer).
Also, keep in mind, that out of all the GOP Candidates, Ron Paul is the only one that has proposed cuts in Military and Corporate Welfare in order to protect Medicare and Social Security (even President Obama has threatened Social Security if the Debt Ceiling wasn't raised).
I understand that the drafters debated and debated every item that went into the Constitution. They were thoughtful people. And, even after they signed, different items meant something different to each of them. Today, we must look at the Constitution and interpret it for our times, not their times. We are not living in the 18th century. This is an entirely different society and while we must use the Constitution as our guide, we must interpret it for where we are now today.
Do you really want to live in a country where you are left on your own entirely? Where the capitalists (the guys who already have all the money) control everything? Because, this is the thing. The guys with all of the money are the ones pushing libertarianism. They are very smart. They're pushing all the sexy stuff to capture support from people who it really will not be good for. Things like: the right to bear arms, the right to visit prostitutes, the right to do drugs, the right to pay no taxes, the right to not go to school, the right to not purchase health insurance, the right to destroy the environment, etc. etc. What they don't tell you is that free-wheeling unregulated capitalism will already put THEM (the rich capitalists) at a huge advantage. They will control everything.
Why does Ron Paul have to rely on small contributions from individuals to run his campaign? Is that part of the trick? Is the media ignoring and demeaning him as part of the trick to give him legitimacy in the eyes of the people?
If libertarianism is what the rich want, why didn't Bush make it happen when he had Republican control of Congress? Is this a long, drawn out game, an ultimate conspiracy, to get the people behind a libertarian?
Because it is so far to the right that they know he'll never win. They won't spend their precious money on something that the American public will not buy into. They'd love the unregulated capitalism, though.
In my opinion it is because he is against no-bid contracts to the Military Industrial Complex, against Corporate Welfare and Bailouts, against the War on Drugs that helps prop up so many industries, that they just don't want him in the process at all.
He can win, polls are showing this (he is even with Obama in most head-to-head polls, and Romney can't win in every poll including a third-candidate; Stein, Johnson, Trump, etc.).
http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/
You make a good point here. Yes, I agree, the Military Industrial Complex is one reason. They are already in the process of privatizing Iraq. But, no, I don't think he could ever win. Also, people just don't understand enough about libertarianism yet. Once they get into it deeper they will not go for it, not unless they're wealthy, of course.
It is interesting because Ron Paul did the best with the poor in New Hampshire. Romney got all the "wealthy vote." Ron Paul also placed 2nd in the Democratic Primary (receiving over 2,000 write-in votes from registered Democrats).
They are starting to privatize Iraq, but Paul will have us out of Afghanistan, and will prevent future invasions. I think that is what they are worried about.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the facts show that Ron Paul is very much electable and able to win support from Republican, Democrats and Independents; enough to beat Obama.
Okay. I just implore you to study Austrian economics further. Study a few people who speak against it. It will create a world with more poverty than we've ever had in history.
Maybe start with this:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Notes:
"If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus."
Thus, a Libertarian federal government would allow for Socialist States, yet not vice-versa. Thus, Keynesian economies could exist within an Austrian economy, but not vice-versa.
In the end, Paul will not be King, he will be President. I also am trying to help elect Greens to Congress, so, as much as I'd like to stay and talk about this, I am actually trying to focus on spreading my "Green Party of California Money Bloom":
http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/green-party-of-california-anniversary-money-bloom-february-4th-2012/
and the ironic part is, Social Security is solvent, it is debts owed to SS that is making the problem. The current Generation is refusing to pay for the Social endowments they used. Thats the real issue.
Is Ron Paul right to be against civil rights?
What do you all think?
Jaded Citizen, even though you avoided answering the question, and instead asked another question (usually people do this to infer that the answer to both questions is the same...which it isn't) I'll still answer your question:
Ron Paul is Right in agreeing with the first 9 provisions of the Civil Rights Bill
Ron Paul is Wrong with disagreeing with the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Bill. However, I understand how it is a pragmatic problem, not a moral problem. He feels that the market would take care of poor business owners; we can disagree with that.
The good thing is the President will never rule on the Civil Rights Bill, it has already been passed. Ron Paul has said he has no interest in changing that 10th provision, just that, when asked his honest opinion, he doesn't think it is necessary.
So, I've answered your question, care to answer mine (which you replied to)?
Fine, my answer is as follows - If voting on this single issue, I would side with Ron Paul. If choosing an entire person and everything that person encompasses to be our next President, I would pick Obama over Paul every time.
Because Ron Paul IS running for president, the question seemed irrelevant to me.
Thanks for commenting!
Follow up question: Do you think Obama should be challenged on that issue? If so, what would be the best way to do that?
Those are loaded questions. It goes to challenging core beliefs. Some belief systems are very old, very steeped in tradition, and dogmatic. For me, it is questioning who decides human rights? Why shouldn't people have the right to live that lifestyle if they so choose?
I agree. People should be able to live the life style they choose. Do you think the current system is doing that the best it can, or do we need to continue to progress?
I don't think we are even close to doing the best we can and we have a long, long way to go.
“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace
While Paul is right about a very few things, civil rights is one of the many things that Ron Paul is dead wrong about.
Even a terrible archer can score a lucky bullseye every now an then. But that doesn't make up for missing the entire target the rest of the time.
Nor does it rationalize the collateral damage in the audience.
Imagine every seat in congress filled with Ron Paul types during the civil rights movements. Where would we be?
A guy can dream, anyway. What a delightful thought...a constitutionalist legislature.
So, you would be for a segregated society. Against women's rights, etc,....
No, I am for a govt that embraces the Constitution. A legislature that would never have passed the Patriot Act or NDAA. A legislature that would never consider SOPA. A legislature that wouldn't have sat by while we invaded Iraq, got involved in Libya. That wouldn't be waging a war on drugs that has moved us closer and closer to a police state, not to mention the innocents caught in the crossfire in Mexico.
RP's feelings on the Civil Rights leg passed in the 60's is based on nitpicky constitutional issues and is not something he should be condemned for. The pros far outweigh the sound bite cons, IMHO.
He should be condemned for it. And you should be condemned for giving him a pass on it.
Civil Rights are not nitpicky constitutional issues. A lot of people in this country fought very hard to gain access to have equal rights to go where they please, to vote, etc,. In fact, a very famous man was assassinated and gave his life chasing the dream you just spat on.
Franky, it disgusts me to hear thoughts like yours.
Never said they were. I said RP's objections to the laws as passed were based on nitpicky constitutuinal issues. It in NO WAY means he objected to equal rights. Shame on you for buying into msm biased sound bites. Do your own research on this issue before becoming disgusted with me, please.
It in EVERY WAY means he objected to civil rights. The words came right out of his mouth. Nobody put a gun to his head and told him to say that. I don't care if his interpretation of the constitution was nitpicky in your eyes, he interpreted that way, and he does not deserve a pass. Nor do you.
Don't tell me to do my homework, I have. You are a fool. Ron Paul is a racist bigot. And if he's not, when is he going to come out and give us full discourse on the racist bigoted newsletters published with his name on them?
I suppose you give him a pass on that too. Please stop with making excuses for him. Demand that he give us full disclosure on who wrote those newsletters. What's he got to hide?
He appeals to the simple-mind demographic He offers simple solutions that appeal to the simple minded. Simple solutions generally don’t work but often sound good and are easy to believe. There are a lot of people these days that believe in simple solutions. I am not trying to be condescending or sarcastic etc. If you think about this a little bit, the righty propagandist are often just saying what the simple-minded already think and then telling them who the villains and heroes are.
[Removed]
We would still have a dozen or more cities under marshal law with riots burning at the heart of the nation. That's where we would be under libertarian rule.
We may not be far from that under this libertarianized GOP and Democrat Congress.
Every time I try to figure out the appeal of Ron Paul to people, the only answer I come up with is magic.
He's like a magician using slight of hand, and people are eating it up, because they don't realize he is performing a trick. They see what he wants them to see, look where he wants them to look, and do not see what he is actually doing.
I know that's not the best analogy, but I can't come up with any other practical reason for people to be so zealous over him.
His co-conspirators know the game that he is playing. They help him by keeping honest Americans distracted with repetitive recitation of intentionally misleading propaganda. They come here to OWS believing that so many OWS people were conned by the same games played by Obama in 2008 that it is easy pickings for them to do the same again in the name of the great troll king Ron Paul.
I would certainly agree that his target is young people who are far more likely to fall for propagandist rhetoric.
Every other candidate (including President Obama) has missed the very important, and relevant, "targets" of our time: The PATRIOT Act, NDAA, Foreign Policy, The Federal Reserve, Corporate Bailouts, The War on Drugs...
The target you say Paul misses for the most part aren't relevant to the modern Presidency and the issues they'll have to deal with. I don't defend all of Paul's positions, but I support him for President in 2012...
Uh....the economy is very relevant, civil rights are always very relevant. The Federal Reserve issue is crazy psycho talk in my opinion. In fact, the entire libertarian philosophy is crazy psycho talk in my opinion.
And the fact that this is not a political movement, rather a philosophical movement is by far the final nail in the coffin.
I 100% disagree with the libertarian philosophy, it is based on mumbo jumbo, murky nature of laws religious convictions. There is not one iota of practical or scientific thinking involved in the libertarian philosophy.
It sounds pretty cool if you believe in the murky, unproven nature of laws that is founded on, but if you don't buy into these underpinnings of the philosophy, it sounds a hell of a lot like religious rhetoric.
Can you give clear examples (murky mumbo jumbo, nature of laws, religious convictions; these terms don't tell me anything).
The Economy is very relevant, yes. So, let's talk about that. What do you feel needs to be done about the economy?
Civil Rights are relevant, but the Civil Rights Act is already established. Racial Segregation is not as relevant as Equality ("Gay Rights"), and on that issue, Paul is Right.
The Federal Reserve is very relevant. To start I guess I need to understand your opinion of the Federal Reserve, of Supply and Demand, and of Fiat vs. Sound Currency. As well, should the Federal Reserve at least be put under the Treasury Department so he people don't pay interest on money "borrowed" from it?
A clear example of a right considered inherent in the libertarian philosophy, no one has equal rights to the fruits of my labor. Where did this assumption come from? How was this assumption derived? Is it a fact, or a fiction? Can it be proven?
By murky concepts of nature, I'm talking about the rights considered inherent, endowed by creation, by the libertarian philosophy. Are you following a philosophy that you don't even understand? Who is the founder of the philosophy?
John Locke is considered the founder of the libertarian (liberal in the old sense) philosophy.
I never said I followed libertarian philosophy. I support Ron Paul. I supported Ralph Nader. I don't agree with either 100%. I voted for John Kerry, and I don't agree with him 50%, I just wanted to get rid of Bush.
However, the idea that we have a right to the fruits of our labor is just as legitimate a belief that we have a right to a Fair Trial. Who said we do? Why would you assume you have a right to this? All of our rights are justified in the Bill of Rights as coming from our creator. They are all philosophical beliefs that most people would agree to.
Some one was saying that there shouldn't be private property, so I started eating his food and took his guitar (as a joke), he then back tracked. We agreed that sharing is ideal, but that you shouldn't force it from anyone.
I agree with Corporate Taxes and Tariffs. I don't agree with Income Tax. I am fine with Drug Taxes, and Gas Taxes. I'd rather not see Property Taxes or Sales Taxes.
I want to see as much freedom as possible, Civil and Economic. It's about finding that balance. To me, Ron Paul helps balance out the system that has gone unchallenged in the wrong direction for far too long.
yay, nice to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I'm nowhere close to libertarian, but if I were to assign "issue points" to each politician, he would get a lot more than the rest of the ones who are most likely to get elected.
If you support Ron Paul, then you are supporting a libertarian. By doing so, you are supporting the libertarian philosophy.
Is the belief that no one has equal rights to the fruits of my labor beyond challenge because some body believes it is legit right endowed by creation. When it is considered a practical right that can be discussed in a practical manner, I can deal with it, when it is considered an inherent right granted by creation and beyond challenge, I have a problem with it. Remember, ownership of a slave was once considered a legit right protected by law also.
Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.
“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace
I want to see as much freedom as possible to, but I want to be able to discuss these freedoms in a practical manner.
I agree people should have access to the land required to sustain themselves. However, this doesn't mean you can just invade someone's land if you wish. There needs to be a balance. If someone is hording land, then the Natural Law is that people will eventually get frustrated and take it from them. This doesn't make it right or wrong, just reality.
You have a right to be safe in your house right? Does someone have a right, say, a poor person from Africa, to come to your house and take your food and "property"?
If you make over $47,000/year you are the 1% of the World. Does the 99% have the right to take that from you? Wouldn't you like the chance to give it willfully? $23,000/year and you are the 10%...
Just because I support Ron Paul does not mean I support complete libertarianism. I support a person for a specific office that considers themselves a libertarian. But I support him because of the views he has and the responsibilities that the Presidency has; military command, veto power, and the executive order.
I supported Ralph Nader, that does not mean I support socialism on a whole, but rathier, I supported Ralph Nader as a balance to power, and for the responsibilities as President: military command, veto power, and the executive order.
According to your logic, which support trumps which? If I support Dennis Kucinich in 2016 will that again make me a socialist? If I then support Rand Paul in 2020, am I again a libertarian? Or am I myself, an independent, making choices on specific issues, and choosing who I feel is the best candidate for a public office?
I also have suggested that Ron Paul choose Matt Gonzalez for his VP:
http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/obama-v-paul-why-ron-paul-is-the-republicans-top-prospect-for-winning-the-presidency-in-2012/
What does that now make me? Why must I be something other than myself?
Is not the name of God "I am that I am; I shall be shall I be."
As Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "Only the Sith speak in absolutes."
Or, as every tyrannical leader has said, "[You are either with me, or against me]."
Why can't I be neither?
There needs to be balance. If someone is hoarding wealth, then the "Natural Law" is that people will eventually get frustrated and take it from them. This doesn't make it right or wrong, just reality.
Thanks, you made the perfect case to debunk your third paragraph. Although, I have no idea where you're getting your world numbers from. There is no doubt that the 1% are hoarding wealth in America.
Money = power. Ownership = Authority Hoarding = Bad.
Based on how easily I can replace a word in your paragraph and completely debunk your own argument for defending the 1% should give you pause in how you view the world around you. I doubt it will.
You ask profound questions that you want me to answer for you. The problem with that is, you strike me as a person more concerned with justifying your rationalities than listening to any real criticisms. After all, you never did address the issues of Ron Paul and the newsletters I brought up earlier. And you off-handedly called the civil rights issue nitpicking.
If you really want to answer those profound questions you ask, you will have to first figure out why you can't take the civil rights issue seriously.
My point is that the Civil Rights Act is not up for debate, but that Same Sex Marriage is. This post is about that issues. I have addressed the newsletters:
http://freeindependentsun.com/zen/actions-speak-louder-than-words-racism-homophobia-bigotry-and-superficiality-in-american-politics/
As I was trying to focus on the issue of Marriage Equality on this post, I am now trying to focus on another cause, so forgive me if I cease to respond to further comments:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-this-worth-occupys-attention-green-party-of-cal/
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Sorry, I can't separate the good tree from the bad woods.
Mr.Ps belief, is that the States should decide.
Where do you think that will lead us?
In the end, that leaves it pretty much up in the air, and leaves him without actually taking a position.
It's a political ploy.
A favorite of the (R)epelicans.
It's a form of deniability.
Its the same with his anti Drug War stance. Paul will leave it up to the states. If the states want to hang pot smokers that is fine with Ron Paul.
SEE: A Political Alternative in a Status Quo World
http://occupywallst.org/forum/an-political-alternative-in-a-status-quo-world/
Actually, Paul opposes the Death Penalty...
Distraction from the issue is typical libertarian debate obfuscation.
Under the current rules Nevada was able to make possession of a gram of Marijuana punishable by 5 years in Prison. Yet, under the current rules, California is unable to allow Medical Marijuana.
Recent polls show over 50% of American's now support legalizing Marijuana, yet under the current rules, not even a single state is allowed to.
And how is your original statement not debate obfuscation? This post was about Gay Marriage.
It's a Constitutional Stance. He actually believes the states should issue the same "civil union" to all couples (heterosexual and homosexual) and allow Marriage to be a religious union, where gay couples can get married at their church and straight couples at theirs, or both at each others.
It's not a ploy, it's Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And the 9th and 10th Amendment.
"He actually believes the states should issue the same "civil union" to all couples"
Libertarian states rights doctrine contradicts this assertion.
What is "Libertarian states rights doctrine"? I'm talking about Paul's position, not the "Libertarian Party" position, or what other self-identified "libertarians" believe.
I try not to put people in groups, but to treat them as individuals. It makes it easier not to make fallacious statements.
The libertarians, while vociferously exalting individual liberty, are the most doctrinaire people in America.
What is "Libertarian states rights doctrine"?
How do you define a "libertarian"?
Idiotic libertarian debate hassling. Endless inane questions until the other person runs screaming from you. Then you self-righteously declare yourself the "winner" of a debate that went on only i your delusional mind.
Go play with yourself. No one else wants to play with you.
Why are you commenting on this thread?
Do you assume everything is a fight? Isn't it possible I want to know where you are coming from and that I am not trying to "win"? Is it possible, perhaps, that you assume others are fighting with you, because you are always fighting with others?
Your initial response to this thread is a good example of exactly what you are now speaking out against.
[Removed]
Isn't Paul a republican? Well I guess he started out as an independent but doesn't this prove that he is moderately open minded?
Paul is Paul. He went to Congress as a Republican, ran for President as a Libertarian, then went back to Congress as a Republican.
Yes, he is open minded when it comes to personal liberty and individual rights, as is the "libertarian" political philosophy.
[Removed]
Someone should remind these hydroencephalic dullards that everything is okay, Ron Paul still utterly hates gay people, just as much as they do. That should get them to chill out.
Why would he take such a risky stance for people he hates?
like any politician, he'll say anything if he thinks it would help him build the demographic he needs for election. And, FYI, there's absolutely nothing risky about his "stance".
Within the GOP Primary?
[Removed]
Marriage has always for centuries required a vagina and a penis. So now we change it up to accomdate the queer folk?call it unions or agreements. But it Is not marriage. .
Marriage is a social contract contrived to bestow property unto an heir. Check your facts, get shit straight. The last generation does not count as all of history. Open your eyes and do some research. You will find that many things you take for granted are actually untrue, and based on the ideals of a closed mind society. Many things in our society come from previous cultures, for many different reasons. Just because Disney and Cable TV offer you a select view of life, does not mean that is how it is, or the only way.
[Removed]
who cares if they get married. i just don't like people acting like it is an equal lifestyle. they should have equal rights but at the same time it is a complex issue. too many people it feels as if people are pushing an agenda of equality that includes ignoring any choice in regards to sexuality that is simply with out basis in science. ignoring environmental factors and personal choice is just well ignorant. i have no problem with homosexuals being married having families now that is where you run into some sticky stuff. are loving parents of any sort better than neglectful abusive self absorbed parents or no parents at all absolutely but to suggest that is the equal idyllic environment for child development is completely insane.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20100607/kids-of-lesbian-parents-are-well-adjusted
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/06/07/kids-with-lesbian-parents-do-just-fine
You can look up more on this if you want, but studies are finding that children raise in gay families end up healthy socially and psychologically. Lesbian couples tend to raise children that are actually more well-adjusted than straight couples. As well, sexual abuse is higher in straight families than gay families.
I'm sure there is more to be studied on the subject, but so far there is no evidence that gay couples are less capable of raising a family.
On the hot topic of sexual orientation, the only long-term study of lesbian-headed families reports 64 percent of the young adult children saying they've considered same-sex relationships (compared to 17 percent with heterosexual parents). having gay parents creates gay kids.
I hate the lies spewed by homophobes. You're a disgrace to logic and humankind as a whole.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html
that does not address the increase in homosexual behaviors found in the children of homosexual couples.
No such increase exists except in your fantasy and lies.
[Removed]
Don't you need a penis and a vagina for it to be called marriage?
@Farleymowat...
Don't you mean a weewee and a hoohah?
Let's not confuse/exclude our conservative brethren and sistren with scientifically accurate and frank discourse....you know as well as I do that science gives them icky feelings.
Liberals are environmentally conservative...pidgin holing does not aid communication.
pretty clear from my comments, and the thread the comments were on, that I was not talking about environmental conservatives but rather social conservatives...let's be adults.
I know who you were talking about, I was pointing out the fallacy in using blanket terms such as conservative and liberal.
It is pretty clear from the post that this thread wasn't started by a social conservative (i.e. I am not a social conservative).
And please read you previous comment before making statements such as, "let's be adults."
Are you against Gay Marriage?
[Removed]
http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
Why would you ask that?
Your comment.
Well hasn't this been true throughout history? It has never been called marriage, perhaps union or partnership or something. But I am confused when people call it gay marriage. Hasn't marriage always been between opposite sexes? Why change the meaning or definition. Instead a new word should be added to the vernacular.
"Hasn't marriage always been between opposite sexes? "asks Farleymowat.
"And haven't women ALWAYS been forbidden to vote?" asked people like you in the thirties.
The "ALWAYS BEEN" argument is pretty weak, considering that societies change all the time. The old ways are sometimes good, sometimes bad... so shouldn't we be flexible?
I studied English, and linguistics, in college. Definitions of words change regularly, that is actually what vernacular means, the popular use of words.
Most people accept a same-sex union as "Marriage." I have friends that are married, and are gay. We don't say they are "gay married" they don't say, "my gay husband."
If it is a matter of semantics I can rephrase the question.
Should homo-sexual and heterosexual unions be treated equally under the law?
And while I am at it, let me just get this one in as well: Fuck Alex Jones.
I think that takes care of everyone.
is this relevant here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
I'm on dial-up, so I can't youtube . . . .
Yep.
I saw your comment below the link where I found it . . .
I thought it looked like a ready made frizbee just for me . . .
heehee
It goes like this: A student asks Chomsky what he thinks about Ron Paul. Chomsky says that he is a nice guy and if he had to have dinner with a Republican then it would be him. He goes on to say that some of RP stances like ending the war in Afghanistan are great but his other stances are very extreme and if you think them through it will lead to tyranny of the corporations. You'd like it. :D
Paul is entertaining to watch on tv - his utter disdain is quite clear and very attractive - but he is still a repelican.
He's charming but batshit crazy.
LoL!
That's been my take on it, and his supporters only differ with regard to their degree of charm . . .
I am not fond of his supporters. They come in two flavors. They know they are off their rockers or they are very, very naive and idealistic. Some really believe in that Ayn Rand crap and what they don't realize is that she never got over the fact that there was a revolution and had there not been a revolution her life would have been so !%. It's somewhere between comedy and tragedy.
It is . . . um . . . informative . . . to note that he did come in second in NH.
He was running for second place. I caught a couple clips of his die hard supporters. Still not impressed.
No, but there does seem to be a lot of them. Even though he took a dive in NH. I guess they don't get it.
We will see.
Fuck Paul.
That's disgusting! I would not even kiss him!
[Removed]
Every time you do that I wind up with a visual
and a feeling that I will never be clean again.
...?
Yep. Ron Paul wants to allow states to make the call. That shows that he is not supportive of it all. We call this same sex marriage and because people are imbeciles it should be protected at the Federal level.
He voted against the Protect Marriage Amendment.
What is ironic, is that social-conservatives use the same argument to say he is for Same Sex Marriage. They say the same thing about Abortion, that since he wants the Federal Government out of it, and won't sign a Federal Ban on Abortion that he is for Abortion, those on the "left" say that means he is against Reproductive Rights. It really just means he wants the Federal Government out of it.
It depends on whether you have made a predetermined judgment about Paul, and what "side" you are coming from as to how you react. People on the "left" and on Occupy websites say that since he wants Drug Laws to be determined by the States that he is for Marijuana users to be executed, those on the "right" say he wants Heroine to be legal. He just wants the Federal Government out of it.
He has said, time and time again, that Same Sex couples should be able to get married and that it doesn't threaten his marriage if they do. He thinks States should handle unions, and that it should be a matter of private contract and personal religious ceremony.
I know Gay Couples that have gotten married even though it is not "legal" with the State. They went through the religious ceremony.
Lemme repeat this. He wants it left to the states.
Never mind the fact that same sex marriage should not even be questioned.
He said he would not challenge a Supreme Court ruling that determines Same Sex Marriage an equal right. That is one of the things the National Organization for Marriage is attacking him on.
Not interested. Should not even have to go to the Supreme Court.
He wants this left to the states. He is done.
It has to go to the Supreme Court, since it is an interpretation of the Constitution. That's how the law works...
First of all, it is 2012---this shouldn't even be an issue.
Second of all, he thinks that this should be decided by the states. So, with that said, he is full of it.
The same could have been said about slavery, and segregation. "Shouldn't" means nothing. Reality is that this is still an issue. How it "should" often has no impact on how it actually is.
So you think nothing needs to be done about it? This shouldn't be an issue, so let's do nothing?
So, what is better/worse; "The states should decide" or "Marriage should be between and man and a woman."? That is what this post asks...
The states should not decide. Period. It should be protected at the Federal level to keep every ignorant clown out of it.
Then you need to bring a case to the Supreme Court and have it ruled on. It may sound "stupid" but that is the process. If the process isn't followed then none of our rights are protected. If you ignore the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, why should any one else respect that parts you expect (Free Speech, Fair Trial, etc.).
Our rights are violated regularly, the Bill of Rights doesn't prevent that, it simply gives us a precedent to have it corrected through the court process.
There is no magic King to make everything right all the time. It is just people. We are still in the wild. This is nature, and this is the best we've done with it so far.
If you believe it should be protected at the Federal Level you need to bring a case to the Supreme Court, or pass an Amendment. That is what we make everyone do. You do not get a special pass, that wouldn't be fair would it?
If the Government is going to sanction Marriage it should be equal. Get a law degree and argue that to the court. Be a part of society, not an outsider complaining that no one is doing what you want.
The Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to rule on Marriage, so under the law it is a State issue. I don't think it should even be a government issue. If you want to get married and have a contract granting shared resources, bank account and equal custody of your children, do so.
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/
Like that one? It is making its way.
Our rights were initially federal limitations and the ones that we have became individual rights through incorporation.
I am not the one that started a thread whining because Ron Paul was attacked. He doesn't win a cookie.
Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate
marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states' same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president's signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
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 — not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act. Americans don't need new federal programs, and they certainly don't need more federal control over their schools. They don't need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won't hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Gay_Marriage/
Why do you want more government centralized? Do you not believe in states rights? The limited powers of the federal government is way out of control, and corrupt. I'm beginning to think the states creating the federal government was a huge mistake.
I don't think it was a mistake, but the hesitation of creating the Federal Government needs to be revisited every Generation. It has taken only a couple generations of forgetting about self-reliance and de-centralization for it to get out of control, it will only take one to get it back in control.
Think of food, our great-grandparents knew how to grow their own food, because they did. After a couple generations of not needing to, we grew up never learning. Now, it is only going to take this generation to say, "I want to grow my own food" to relearn. The same goes with Government, that is why we see the current political shift occurring.
Good points.
It should be protected at the Federal level to keep every ignorant clown out of it. ^^^^that's why.
Don't you believe in individual rights?
Every time a law is enacted, someone becomes a criminal. You must buckle your seat belt. You cannot smoke. You cannot have more than 1 person on a bicycle. No incandescent lightbulbs. .15% alcohol is a dwi. Make that .10%. make that .08%. make that 0%. if you grow wheat for personal use you are denying commerce and therefore effect interstate commerce. You may not pick up an eagle feather, or you are guilty of killing the eagle. Ban trans fats.
Um..........criminal laws are left to the states for the most part. You do understand this, yeah?
Of course. Don't you believe in states rights?
Not if they interfere with individual rights which is the only time you hear people scream about state rights. Oh, and when it is about accountability for money received from the federal government.
Not even if that evil troll king were the only piece of ass on the planet...
[Removed]
You slimy worthless scum sucking Koch whore.
[Removed]
That's it. Let all your racist crap out. It's kind of like burping a baby. Pat you on the back enough and you get it all out. :D
Let it flow.
Well, if that's what you want , go right ahead.