Ron Paul: Government should have nothing to do with marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 1:59 PM GMT


  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    He's basically leaving the discrimination up to the states. No thanks,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 2:13 PM GMT
    creature saidHe's basically leaving the discrimination up to the states. No thanks,


    LOL, the federal government is discriminating against gay marriage far more than the states are.

    Basically what he's advocating (although not clearly) is that everyone should get equal benefits and call their "union" whatever they like, straight or gay or whatever. Whether someone is "married" or not would simply depend on their community or how they want to view it or with their church.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    Democratically controlled states do have less discrimination against the federal government, you're right about that.

    I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 3:49 PM GMT
    creature saidDemocratically controlled states do have less discrimination against the federal government, you're right about that.

    I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages.


    Your logic is predicated on the faulty assumption that the federal government is somehow always going to be on the right side of history in its decisions.

    How is leaving an issue like marriage up to the federal government any better than leaving it up to States? Yes, there have been instances in history where the Federal government just happened to be on the right side of progress, but it could have been the opposite, even with the example you gave. Look at the situation now where certain states want to legalize certain things that the federal government wants to keep illegal. We have certain states that have legalized gay marriage already while the federal government has not.

    Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights.

    Leaving certain things such as this up to the states maximizes freedom and diversity for everyone living in a country, IMO. We would already have states fully legalizing marijuana by now, with some preferring to keep it illegal. Those who want to smoke can go live there and those who don't can live elsewhere.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 4:01 PM GMT
    You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm just talking about the federal government intervening and making gay marriage legal. Whether it's a supreme court decision, or a democratically-controlled congress and white house.

    I'm aware of the federal government erring on the wrong side of history, but that would not be the case here.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    "Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights. "

    WTF?!?!?!

    No I wouldn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 4:05 PM GMT
    creature saidYou're blowing this out of proportion. I'm just talking about the federal government intervening and making gay marriage legal. Whether it's a supreme court decision, or a democratically-controlled congress and white house.

    I'm aware of the federal government erring on the wrong side of history, but that would not be the case here.


    What do you mean? It's already the case as we speak. The federal government RIGHT NOW is on the wrong side of history and hopefully it changes. Certain states already legally accept gay marriages whilst the federal government won't, and you're saying that ultimately if the federal government were to overrule the wishes of the states to accept gay marriage that you would essentially be in support of that. Are you saying the government is on the right side of history and the states which have accepted gay marriage and civil unions are on the wrong side?

    Pointing to cases in the past where the federal government was on the right side is such a lame justification for your pretension that if marriage was taken out of the equation and states were given more decisions on these issues that all of a sudden states would automatically be on the wrong side.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 4:07 PM GMT
    creature said"Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights. "

    WTF?!?!?!

    No I wouldn't.


    But you just said:

    "I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages."


    And la dee da, don't we ALL want the government to "do the right thing".
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 4:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    creature said"Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights. "

    WTF?!?!?!

    No I wouldn't.


    But you just said:

    "I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages."


    Exactly. I don't want the states to discriminate. I want the federal government to step in and say it's a violation of the constitution and thus permit gay marriage.

    Your boy Ron Paul would allow the states to discriminate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 4:18 PM GMT
    creature said
    mocktwinkie said
    creature said"Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights. "

    WTF?!?!?!

    No I wouldn't.


    But you just said:

    "I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages."


    Exactly. I don't want the states to discriminate. I want the federal government to step in and say it's a violation of the constitution and thus permit gay marriage.

    Your boy Ron Paul would allow the states to discriminate.


    Either you're just feigning denseness or you really are dumb.

    And you want the federal government to discriminate under the assumption that they will always make the right decisions over the states!

    So in your opinion it would be RIGHT for the federal government to try and reverse gay marriage in the states that have accepted it as long as they think it's the right thing to do.

    Make up your mind on how you think it should be, Nancy.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 06, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    I thought Ron Paul sounded the most moderate of any of the Republicans in last night's debate -- so I guess that is at least a step in the right direction. His stance on gay marriage actually seemed more liberal than President Obama's has ever been
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 4:25 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI thought Ron Paul sounded the most moderate of any of the Republicans in last night's debate -- so I guess that is at least a step in the right direction. His stance on gay marriage actually seemed more liberal than President Obama's has ever been


    Oh, of course he is more liberal on this issue! Absolutely!

    Meanwhile, the "liberals" go on pretending.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 06, 2011 4:32 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Meanwhile, the "liberals" go on pretending.



    It's like they live in some alternate universe where all the Democrats are running around chanting "Save The Gays, Save The Gays". HELL-oh! Snap out of it!!!!
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 4:43 PM GMT
    Mocktwinkie,

    You claim that I said:

    you're saying that ultimately if the federal government were to overrule the wishes of the states to accept gay marriage that you would essentially be in support of that. Are you saying the government is on the right side of history and the states which have accepted gay marriage and civil unions are on the wrong side?

    That is not the case. I said I want the federal government to step in as it did for interracial marriage. This means I want a federal government to prevent the discrimination of gay marriage and making gay marriage legal across the United States. I am aware that with DOMA that we currently have that discrimination with the federal government. It is my belief with a Supreme Court decision (federal government), or a democratically controlled congress that this can get done (again, another example of federal government intervention).

    I would not, and have not said, want the federal government reversing gay marriage in states that have them. That is you twisting my words.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI thought Ron Paul sounded the most moderate of any of the Republicans in last night's debate -- so I guess that is at least a step in the right direction. His stance on gay marriage actually seemed more liberal than President Obama's has ever been


    Oh, of course he is more liberal on this issue! Absolutely!

    Meanwhile, the "liberals" go on pretending.


    The liberals go around pretending?

    Do you really want to look at each state where gay marriage is legal and look at the politicians who voted for it and against it and see how the conservatives voted for the issue and how the liberals did?

    I doubt you would.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 5:00 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    creature said"Apparently you would support the federal government if it decided to overrule the legalization of gay marriage in the states that have accepted it? Wow, I guess that goes to show how much people like you care about gay rights. "

    WTF?!?!?!

    No I wouldn't.


    But you just said:

    "I don't want to leave the discrimination up to the states, I want the federal government to intervene as it did for interracial marriages."


    And la dee da, don't we ALL want the government to "do the right thing".


    According to who you support, apparently not you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 5:00 PM GMT
    creature saidMocktwinkie,

    You claim that I said:

    you're saying that ultimately if the federal government were to overrule the wishes of the states to accept gay marriage that you would essentially be in support of that. Are you saying the government is on the right side of history and the states which have accepted gay marriage and civil unions are on the wrong side?

    That is not the case. I said I want the federal government to step in as it did for interracial marriage. This means I want a federal government to prevent the discrimination of gay marriage and making gay marriage legal across the United States. I am aware that with DOMA that we currently have that discrimination with the federal government. It is my belief with a Supreme Court decision (federal government), or a democratically controlled congress that this can get done (again, another example of federal government intervention).

    I would not, and have not said, want the federal government reversing gay marriage in states that have them. That is you twisting my words.


    Our debate has less to do with what outcome we both want (which is gay rights and equality) and the fact that you continue to entertain this fantasy that the federal government making all of the final decisions on this issue will automatically result in "better" gay rights than leaving the issue up to states to decide. Do you not understand this? CAN you not understand this? It's a decision making power question, not an outcome question.

    You've expressed over and over how you are against Ron Paul's position because you think that all of a sudden states will automatically decide to be against gay people and that they need the federal government to be the ultimate arbiter (because, ostensibly they will do the "right thing" and will always be on the right side of history). But of course, ironically we find out that the fact certain states have progressed on this particular issue better than the federal government belies your myths.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 5:01 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said

    Meanwhile, the "liberals" go on pretending.



    It's like they live in some alternate universe where all the Democrats are running around chanting "Save The Gays, Save The Gays". HELL-oh! Snap out of it!!!!


    Interesting, as I've seen more Democrats than Republicans pushing gay marriage through in their respect states, and Democratic governors signing it into law.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    creature saidMocktwinkie,

    You claim that I said:

    you're saying that ultimately if the federal government were to overrule the wishes of the states to accept gay marriage that you would essentially be in support of that. Are you saying the government is on the right side of history and the states which have accepted gay marriage and civil unions are on the wrong side?

    That is not the case. I said I want the federal government to step in as it did for interracial marriage. This means I want a federal government to prevent the discrimination of gay marriage and making gay marriage legal across the United States. I am aware that with DOMA that we currently have that discrimination with the federal government. It is my belief with a Supreme Court decision (federal government), or a democratically controlled congress that this can get done (again, another example of federal government intervention).

    I would not, and have not said, want the federal government reversing gay marriage in states that have them. That is you twisting my words.


    Our debate has less to do with what outcome we both want (which is gay rights and equality) and the fact that you continue to entertain this fantasy that the federal government making all of the final decisions on this issue will automatically result in "better" gay rights than leaving the issue up to states to decide. Do you not understand this? CAN you not understand this?

    You've expressed over and over how you are against Ron Paul's position because you think that all of a sudden states will automatically decide to be against gay people and that they need the federal government to be the ultimate arbiter. But of course, ironically we find out that the fact certain states have progressed on this particular issue better than the federal government belies your myths.


    There you go, demonstrating once again your inability to comprehend.

    I want a federal government adhering to the constitution to bar discrimination against gay marriage. I do not believe that the federal government always makes the right decisions. Just like I do not believe this occurs at the state level, nor the local one.

    I never once proclaimed that the federal government automatically makes the right decision. Going back to the case of interracial marriage, it was not something always supported by the federal government.

    I know that some states, in regards to gay marriage, have shown to be more progressive than the federal government. I also know that it was largely because of the Democrats that we have gay marriage in those states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 5:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said




    I've always wholeheartedly agreed with Ron Paul on this issue since I learn towards libertarian as him (although I wouldn't want the states involved either).

    Personally I would love nothing more but to have the government out of my entire life forever, but getting the government out of my personal business would be the nicest gift of all since I think consenting adults should have whatever legal arrangement is appropriate for them. It's no one else business.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 5:12 PM GMT
    Ron Paul's position is simple. But given your comments in this thread, simple is hard for you to understand.

    He would leave it up to the states. If the state permits gay marriage, that would be fine for him. If the state does not allow gay marriage, that would be fine for him too.

    To me, that is not acceptable. I do not care for the "state right" to discriminate against someone with unconstitutional measures.

    Now let's see how you twist that, Sarah.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 5:37 PM GMT
    creature saidRon Paul's position is simple. But given your comments in this thread, simple is hard for you to understand.

    He would leave it up to the states. If the state permits gay marriage, that would be fine for him. If the state does not allow gay marriage, that would be fine for him too.

    To me, that is not acceptable. I do not care for the "state right" to discriminate against someone with unconstitutional measures.

    Now let's see how you twist that, Sarah.


    What's simple is that you are perfectly fine with the federal government being able to enact the very same negative outcome for gay rights that you are afraid states will enact. Newsflash, our federal government already is discriminating against gays, while at the same time we have certain states that have decided to accept equal rights and gay marriage.

    So what exactly is your problem with Ron Paul's position? It is very likely that if states were given the say on "marriage" that some would either get rid of the word marriage or they would keep it and it would be exactly the way that it is now already (and currently it discriminates!).

    You continue to not comprehend that this is not an issue of outcome, it's an issue of process. Apparently you are in favor of the "process" where the federal government has the last word on this issue as opposed to individual states. well guess what, THAT PROCESS IS CURRENTLY DISENFRANCHISING YOU. We both are in favor of the same equal rights for gay people, but you just can't seem to get that. You go on to blissfully believe that the "process" where the federal government has the last word will ALWAYS result in a MORE positive outcome for issues such as gay rights.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 06, 2011 5:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWe both are in favor of the same equal rights for gay people, but you just can't seem to get that.




    Surely this doesn't surprise you. Creature can't see the forest for the trees. He's blinded by his gayness.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 06, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie saidWe both are in favor of the same equal rights for gay people, but you just can't seem to get that.




    Surely this doesn't surprise you. Creature can't see the forest for the trees. He's blinded by his gayness.


    Uh, no. According to mocktwinkie's interpretation, I'm apparently not in favor for equal rights.