How is this interesting? This is biased propaganda. It’s created by a pro-Ron Paul entity, spouting the same ‘the government should just stay out of it!’ bullshit. Here’s the problem: Ron Paul can say that he thinks the government should stay out of Americans’ personal lives until the cows come home, but then he supports legislation that says exactly the opposite. Ron Paul supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which would allow states to not recognize same-sex marriages. Ron Paul then helped introduce the Marriage Protection Act, which prevented Supreme Courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Later, Ron Paul would say that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military regarding homosexuality was a very good policy. Paul’s reasoning? He didn’t want homosexuals “imposing” their gayness on the rest of us cisgender, gender binary Americans.
Ron Paul is, arguably, the worst kind of homophobe. He’s a vicious, sneering, homophobe who has been afforded power. He’s been given a voice, a platform, and resources to promote his hatred and fear. He’s got equally cruel supporters who keep claiming that Paul wants to ‘limit the government.’
Does Ron Paul want to keep the government out of Americans’ private lives? Absolutely. But only if the American is white, anti-choice, wealthy, cisgendered, and Christian.
First let me state that I myself am a gay man. Ron Paul is not about trying to tell people how to run their personal lives. He wants to get government out of marriage all together, especially at the federal level. He has stated over and over again that he does not believe the government should have any right in saying who can and cannot marry but that it should be a personal decision based on either personal contract or religious beliefs, not bureaucratic legalities. But since we’re not at that point yet that it should be left to states.
Now, lets look at the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA is about Keeping the federal government out of marriage, not vice versa. Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. Reason being is simply due to the fact that the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to be involved in this area of our lives. The 9th & 10th Amendments make it crystal clear that if authority is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government then the power to legislate on the issue goes to the States. Marriage, civil unions and relationships are not mentioned a single time in the Constitution….
Nowhere, but despite it’s euphemistic title DOMA actually keeps the federal government OUT of marriage. That is why Dr. Paul supported it – to keep the federal government from being used to impose marriage policy on the states in any direction. This means equally that a state that approves of Gay Marriage cannot deny gay marriage to its people by imposing the standards of another state upon them. The bill also makes it to where the BENEFITS of couples under one state law do not carry over to another state. Marriage laws are defined by states.
DOMA does not impose anything upon the states. It does not tell the states how to define marriage. It does not prevent same-sex, polygamous, or any form of marriage.It does not tell the states what they must or must not recognize.
What the DOMA does is specifically iterate (Section 2) that marriage is a jurisdiction of the states and that the federal government may not be used to force any state to give effect to the decisions of any other state regarding same sex marriage. The DOMA effectively says the federal government will not get involved. So the federal courts will not be used for to force states to adopt any form of marriage policy recognized by another.
As far as the definition of marriage goes, DOMA imposes no definition of marriage on any state. The definition clause (Section 3), only defines marriage solely for purposes of the federal government such as federal taxes and immigration provisions, etc. Same-sex or polygamous marriage advocates can take issue with this for policy reasons, but not because it infringers state sovereignty because this definition dictates nothing to the states. States may still enact or define marriage as they see fit including polygamous, or same-sex or no state sanctioning or involvement marriage at all if they choose.
So DOMA, a law that solely applies to the federal government and specifically keeps the federal government out of state marriage issues and disputes, conforms to the Constitution in that marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government. Period.
The Marriage Protection Act (MPA) is a bill in the United States Congress to amend the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA.
Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004 said:
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.
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.
So how do we know that he’s really just against government involvement in marriage and not just a huge homophobe in disguise? Ron Paul also refused to sign the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) pledge.
“NOM has reached out to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates to sign the groups pledge. The pledge supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman as well as preventing same-sex couples from adopting children. Every candidate has signed the pledge except Ron Paul. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, there are times when he steps away from the party line and sticks to his ideology. Though Paul does recognize marriage as one man and one woman, he is against a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage because it would take power away from the states to legislate the issue locally.”
As for don’t ask don’t tell.
“I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual, to me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no sense.” - Ron Paul
On June 8, 2009, the Ron Paul voted YES for passage of H.R. 2965 [111th]: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-486
Ron Paul discusses the topic of Gay Marriage and Marriage in general in his book “Liberty Defined”. He explains that the government needs to get out of marriage in general and stop defining what it is. The problem lies in giving privileges to one group (heterosexuals) and denying it to another (homosexuals).
(Source: truthaboutronpaul)
I made this because I grew tired of always having to find articles and primary sources that I once had when trying to clarify the truth about Ron Paul and his positions with people. So here is everything nice and organized and ready for referencing based upon topics. Thanks for checking this page out!
