Alex Blaze

Ron Paul on Same-Sex Marriage

Filed By Alex Blaze | May 08, 2011 7:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, You Gotta See This
Tags: marriage, ron paul

Ron Paul on same-sex marriage.

Recent Entries Filed under You Gotta See This:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

As usual, an unrealistic, cop-out answer that has no real world value to GLBT folks.

I'm gay and sure as hell not a Republican, but I'd vote for Paul over war-mongerer, sell-out, corporate puppet Obama any day.

See my vid:
Election 2012 Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura? Yes! Yes! Yes!

It's stuff like this that makes me realize how much I might actually like Ron Paul. I don't want to legalize gay marriage, I want to stop the govt from telling me I can't get married. Does anyone really want the govt's blessing of their marriage (a mostly religious institution)? Maybe some of you folks do, but personally I don't want the govt anywhere near my bedroom. Let's take away power from the govt, not give them yet more regulating capacity.

Tall Stacey | May 9, 2011 7:16 PM

Pardon me, but, except for the clearly unconstitutional DOMA, marriage is the province of the States and not the Federal Government. While I won’t go into DOMA’s being contrary to Article. IV, Section. 1 of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State) the tenth Amendment specifically states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Marriage is not delegated to the United States, it is then reserved to the States and was entirely the province of the States until DOMA in 1996, 220 years of American history. And indeed, except for the limitations imposed by DOMA, marriage is still a State issue as is evidenced by the varying rules from State to State as to age requirements, medical tests, sexuality etc.

As for marriage being “a mostly religious institution”, you are quite mistaken. The Sacrament of Marriage as bestowed by the Churches is just that, a blessing. The issue of marriage, and especially the denial of marriage rights to one segment of the population however, is a purely secular issue. For a marriage contract to be legally binding there must be a State issued license. Each State set’s it’s own requirements to obtain that license. No religious involvement is necessary as in every state people can be legally married in a Civil ceremony before a Judge, J.P. and other authorized officials.

The issue is the 1138 federal benefits bestowed by virtue of marriage, ranging from tax consequences to sponsorship of immigrating partners to rights to be buried with a spouse in a federal cemetery. In addition there are many “regulations” also tied to the word marriage especially as in establishing next of kin for such things as hospital visitation for example.

Personally, I do not give a hoot what happens with religious Marriage. I am concerned for my – and your – equal rights in the legal contract of secular marriage. If it is legal to marry, then my partner and I should be made available for all the legal rights, benefits and responsibilities that other married couples receive. My marriage must be recognized universally between States as other legal marriages are. That is the issue here. That is why this discussion is important. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with equity and justice under the law.

That is something you, fnord, and Mr. Paul, and every other American needs to understand. Equality must be for all or it is for none.