Just knowing the definition of State and Federal in context to the constitution might shed some light on We the People act:
State: a sovereign political entity in public international law
Federal: Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.
“Keeping the federal government out of sexual privacy cases” means decreasing privacy rights. Federal court cases are what stopped states from usurping their citizens’ rights in that area. Sodomy laws are anti-libertarian. Anti-contraception laws are anti-libertarian. What Ron Paul’s proposal is designed to do is allow states to start enforcing those laws again.
A law taking away freedom is a law taking away freedom. The deprived citizens aren’t less deprived because a state government abused them instead of the federal government.
If civil marriage was abolished, what freedoms, specifically, would churches gain that they do not have right now? What law, specifically, takes those rights away from them currently?
Wow, good for him! He agrees with everyone else on an extremely obvious issue! However there was more to the segregated South than just the denial of voting rights. That was a major issue, but segregation was rampant in all parts of life. And Ron Paul says the government shouldn’t have done anything about it.
And you agree with me about that, so there’s no dispute to be had.
The curious thing about Paul’s hands-off stance on civil rights is that he was 30 in 1965, so he ought to have some firsthand knowledge of what things were like back then. Evidently he’s forgotten, or else he’s the type of guy who sits in the front of the bus and doesn’t look back. Regardless, there are still people who remember what things were like in those days - people who were on the wrong end of the discrimination - and many of them have taught their children about it. So even if Ron Paul has no idea what was happening, other people do. They understand that “the government shouldn’t tell you who to do business with” might sound nice in theory - it sounds sort of live-and-let-live - but that in practice it means that big swaths of people are deliberately excluded from society. Their choices are restricted and their humanity is ignored based on the prejudices of others. And before you give me some nonsense about how they can build their own parallel economy and make everything just as good, I’ll remind you that the majority groups have the power to prevent that from happening, and they won’t allow it. And that even if that could happen, it doesn’t address the moral dilemma. You can argue that the government shouldn’t be involved in this kind of thing and that everyone should have a level playing field, but fortunately, there are plenty of people who already know how that song and dance goes. They’re not going to buy it.
You sir, are correct. However citizens have a much bigger say on state government than on federal government. I believe Ron Paul said it was unconstitutional, which may be debatable.
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”
I don’t agree with him 100% on everything. Privacy is given by the 9th/10th amendments, but can be usurped by state and federal law… perhaps an amendment is in store?
They get power back over their religion. The state currently controls the power of marriage… the debate here is mainly over the term used which in itself is silly. My big problem is the discrepancies between civil unions and civil marriages, as I believe they should be granted the same rights, and thus getting rid of civil “marriages” all together.
What power, specifically, do they not have, and in what way is it held exclusively by the government? How would abolishing civil marriage return it to them? What specifically would they be able to do in a state without civil marriage that they cannot do currently?
Danny is apparently afraid that, if gay marriage is legalized, then churches will have to marry gay people.
You know, the way a Catholic church is currently forced to marry two Protestants, or a previously married Catholic who hasn’t gotten the first marriage annulled.
Oh, right - they don’t do that.
Specifically they could deny people marriage that is unworthy of their “God.” (However, I’ll look into this subject more and perhaps you’ll have convinced me otherwise.)
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion does not mean we endorse the speech or religion. I mean people are allowed to be white supremacists in the U.S., but does that mean I endorse them? No. The Catholic church shouldn’t be forced to change it’s religion so that it must marry two Protestants either. You could get married from your respective church… but really it is silly, I’m sure gay people could rewrite the bible and have their own religion. But if you feel so strongly that gays are being oppressed, maybe you should be attacking religion, and getting rid of the freedom of religion portion of the constitution.
I am personally an atheist and could care less about what gays do, but I am a strict constitutionalist. If for no other reason but this: We have a document that tells what the government can and can’t do. Every time you vote for a law that is against the constitution you create further and further precedent to go against the constitution, until eventually the government functions without restriction. I mean we already have a President who can go to war at whim, who has claimed he could legally assassinate American citizens. We have the Patriot Act or as Ron Paul calls “repeal the 4th amendment act.” You can label anyone a terrorist and send them to prison without due process. However, if we as a “nation” (something we weren’t suppose to be) want to change all these things that we want but go against the constitution… maybe we should amend the constitution, or perhaps come up with an entirely new document. No good will arise from a government who ignores its own code.
"A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.
A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale. " How to Plan a Civil Wedding Ceremony
I approve of gay marriage. Congrats! 
The fact that courts have interpreted the Constitution differently from you doesn’t mean the government is “ignoring its own code”. In any event, that ship pretty much sailed with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In any event, Paul is just as hypocritical as everyone else. Blah, blah, blah, personal freedom, except abortion because he’s not personally into it.
At what point have the courts authorized Obama going to war under Libya? Most of Ron Paul’s viewpoints can be argued from a constitutional stance, whether they are all right or not idk, I haven’t looked in depth to each and every one of his stances.
I actually used to be pro abortion for a very long time until recently. My main problem with abortion now is this: at what point is a fetus a human being? And at what point does it have rights? I mean 38 states have laws pertaining to “feticide” where you can be charged with injuring a fetus.
If you can answer that, I can agree for a cut off point on abortions. If there is no cut off point to abortions, is it wrong to kill your children after birth? I don’t think I’ve called anyone here stupid or tone deaf. I don’t think i’ve put words into their mouths (maybe the “You’re acting as if he would have voted against the 13th amendment.” as borderline, but I’ll gladly retract that if asked). Can we all have a civil discussion without attacking people, but rather debating ideas? 
Criminal statutes pertaining to injuries to fetuses apply only to viable fetuses, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove that a fetus was viable. It’s basically the same rule as with abortion - a viable fetus is a human being, and a nonviable fetus isn’t.
So what? None of them ended it without governmental decree. And that’s what Ron Paul was criticizing.
Or maybe because Ron Paul is enough of a bigot to publish a newsletter with regular KKK-style features. Or maybe he just overlooked such articles repeatedly written by his staff. Maybe. But hey, we don’t have to speculate, we can look to his words:
Let’s be clear. Ron Paul does not approve of slavery nor does he approve of Jim Crow. That’s not the weird part. What’s weird is that he focuses on the property rights of slave owners and ignores the property rights of the slaves themselves. But wait it gets better:
That’s ahistorical… and frankly hilariously gullible. As I said earlier, slaveholders traded cotton and tobacco: these items generally didn’t come with labeling requirements in the 1800s. The question of whether Ron Paul is a bigot is still a matter of debate. But we can confirm that he’s a total and complete loon.
Hilariously, Paul would also have opposed labeling requirements.
-Joe
The media is interested in news. Ron Paul having a small but enthusiastic following that can lead him to do well in something like a straw poll aint news. He has shown before that he has that … and that that following does not translate to being a real contender. Bachmann is at least as fringe as he is but has not yet proven that she can’t win a nomination. Also the general public is not yet bored with her. The storyline to get people to tune in is to make it seem like the poll means something and that something is that Bachmann may actually be a force to be reckoned with. If they simultaneously pay any attention to Paul’s showing then they have to admit that the results really don’t mean to much at this point (538’s position that it is not too bad at predicting the Iowa caucus results notwithstanding). Huntsman has no following but he has not yet proven that he can’t get one. His test is New Hampshire. If he fails to get any support there then the media ignores him. But for now he is a potential story, the least insane of GOP pack and while unlikely to be the nominee not at all unlikely to be a VP candidate, especially if a Perry wins and the team needs to appeal to the middle some.
The media is not in the business of informing; they are in the business of selling eyeballs and earpans. They need stories that do that.
That’s the galling part. Or at least it’s the galling part when it’s coupled with cluelessness about what this means for people’s rights.
I’m struggling to understand what you are arguing here, since I think we’re on the same side. No one, anywhere, that I know of has ever suggested that any of the laws/court decisions legalizing same sex marriage in any way would force any private or religious institution to perform a marriage ceremony between two gays. I believe the NY law specifically (and IMO redudantly) states that. Similarly, no private or religious institution is currently obligated to perform a marriage ceremony between any two people. Where are you seeing an attack on the ‘freedom of religion portion of the constitution’?
For the record, I severely mangled Ron Paul’s position. His advocacy of consumer boycotts was put forth as an alternative to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The emancipation stuff was a spoof, as he had earlier said that the civil war was unnecessary: the north should have just bought the slaves from the South. This still seems pretty ahistorical to me, but it’s an entirely different thing than what I quoted earlier.
Never mind.
You’d vote for a guy who wants to destroy the economy by going back to the ridiculously stupid gold standard, allow states to bring back Jim Crow laws,
and who claims to support free trade while opposing every effort to create it?
My take on this is that Ron Paul is considered as generating amusing “filler” material between the “real” stories about the GOP primary season. Imagine you’re watching some some TV movie channel, and they have a few minutes between flicks, and all the sudden a Road Runner cartoon starts up. You smile and sit back and remember your childhood and keep watching, instead of getting up and ignoring your TV to go take a dump.
He’s the alternative to stepping away for a quick dump.