I think you pretty much have it. The end result of letting the states decide same-sex marriage*, or abortion rights, or sodomy laws, or education, or any number of things that Ron Paul wants to return to the state level is less opportunity and freedom for the people these laws are meant to protect. Plus you don’t even have a net reduction in government control, it’s just that now instead of one governing body deciding these issues you have 50, you’ll actually have more government than you did before and if you travel to other states you get to figure out what rights you keep and what rights you lose as you cross the border.
You ask “How would it feel if different states had different laws based on the color of your skin?” Well, if Ron Paul had his way that’s exactly what we’d have. He’s stated that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act. If you’re black, eat wherever you want in this state, but don’t be surprised if people tell you “We don’t serve your kind here,” in the state next door. Ron Paul thinks this is acceptable because state’s rights should trump civil rights. I don’t.
*Yes I know the federal government isn’t quite there yet on this issue, but I’d be willing to bet they get there before, say, Texas does. When they do I’m perfectly ok with them dragging my state forward.
In dividing up state-federal functions, marriage is one of those things the Framers never even thought about. If Joseph Smith had been around in their time and polygamy were an actual issue that needed confronting, then they might have said, "Of course marriage should be governed by state law, what could be more in line with a state’s traditional functions?" Or they might have said, "Of course marriage should be governed by federal law, how can we have a country where you’re married in state X but not in state Y?" Or, they might have come to blows over it . . .
So would you say Ron Paul isn’t REALLY a defender of civil liberties? It sounds like he just wants to push the power to oppress to the states instead of the government.
In my opinion, yes. In Paul’s opinion, no. [del]That decision should be left to the states.[/del] States shouldn’t have to recognize marriages performed in other states despite the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
On some issues, he has been. But yes, he does pretty much believe state governments can limit your liberties however they like. As long as the federal government doesn’t do it, that’s fine.
That seems to be a fissure within the libertarian movement. It draws heavily on an American libertarian tradition which, traditionally, has been bound up with the concepts of “states’ rights” and local autonomy and federal tyranny; but the more essentially libertarian way is to look at the conflict between personal liberty and governmental authority, whatever kind of government it is.
Another fissure within the libertarian movement is immigration and border control. Some libertarians are also nationalists (Paul wants to build a border fence, etc.), others see crossing a government-hallucinated “border” unmolested as simply a form of personal freedom.
I’m speaking of libertarians, not Libertarians, because the general tendency/movement is much broader than the Libertarian Party.
So we should also discount the complimentary things Dondero said on his site about Ron Paul, including Dondero’s belief that Paul is not a racist or anti-Semite?
The US is not policing the world. Another parroted generic phrase that ignores human rights, diplomatic allegiances, vested interests, economic stability, and yes - promoting peace through kicking arse of those who actively pursue killing other humans for sport, prejudices, barbaric religious practices, etc (the list is long).
Just take a brief 4 seconds to imagine if we had Paul as President during key times throughout history, say 1812, 1846, 1861, 1914, 1941, …
To say “topple governments we dislike” insinuates intervention is born of whimsy (or trending mood) - is a generic assertion with no merit. Applying “like or dislike” to incredibly complex positions is juvenile (then again, Paul does have the support of most young minds fresh out of high school).
Let’s be clear here: the whole argument advanced by Ron Paul and other social conservatives that the full faith and credit clause would compel 49 other states to recognize a same sex marriage if it was legal in one state is just false. In fact, there is a stronger word for that claim, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to use it in GD.
Someone who claims to be an expert on the Constitution should know that making SSM legal in one state does not make it legal in all 50 states, but this is yet another example of Ron Paul acting like a social conservative rather than a libertarian.
The fact is that when the issue at hand relates to a freedom that liberals tend to support, such as SSM, abortion, civil rights, or preventing government-mandated prayer in schools, Ron Paul opposes those liberties on a national level and wants the states to be able to decide against them. When it comes to freedoms that conservatives like, such as gun rights, protecting the lives of the unborn, and so on, Ron Paul has no problem voting for Federal legislation to advance those causes, because they are too important to be left to the states.
I am very reluctant to call people hypocrites, but Ron Paul really teeters very close to that line in my view: states rights for states who want to roll back liberal freedoms, Federal activism to promote conservative liberties.
Do you mean to ask why Paul claims that DOMA and other laws are needed to protect states from gay marriage laws?
The simple fact is that even though Paul is tagged with the libertarian label all the time, and he does indeed have libertarian stances on some issues (like the war on drugs, sorta), he is a hardcore right-wing conservative when it suits him.
On matters of abortion, marriage, and prayer in schools (note that he has said many times that the separation of church and states does not exist in the Constitution), he isn’t libertarian at all, he’s just another right-winger.
But I mean at the end of the day the constitution only says so much, right? Does it make sense to limit Federal powers to the constitution only and put everything else to the states?
To the extent that one believes that is true, that’s fine. If one believes that there is no Federal power to intervene in state decisions on the form of marriages, that’s great. (There are of course practical matters on how the Federal government must treat marriages, such as for tax purposes, or deciding benefits for government employees or Social Security recipients, etc.)
But Paul takes the position that marriage is a state issue, yet supports Federal laws that are anti-same sex marriage. He supports a bill that would prevent the courts from even hearing a case on whether a particular state’s marriage law would violate the “equal protection of the law” clause of the Constitution – how in the world is that a good idea to tell courts that they are not allowed to apply the Constitution – whatever the courts may believe it says – to a legal controversy?
No, it doesn’t. Conservatism and literal constitutionalism is a minor religion where you believe slave holding white men from 300 years ago were blessed with divine foresight, and we either have to try to divine what they WOULD have said if they were here, or try to read into what they wrote for to stretch it to apply to technologies and society that didn’t exist in their time…as opposed to WHAT WOULD WORK FOR THE BEST.
Amending the constitution as a living document and doing what works best for the U.S. is the ideal scenario, it is what progressives have always been about and America gets better and better over time as progressive ideas are utilized.
To play Devil’s Advocate, though, isn’t this the point? He wants marriage out of the federal level entirely, and therefore the Constitution wouldn’t apply to cases pertaining to something that’s state-handled. Do I understand this properly?
Except Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. He was out of Congress when the law passed, but he’s apparently spoken out in favor of it and he introduced a (failed) bill that would have barred the courts from hearing challenges to the law.
So let me get this straight (I am also looking at the wiki):
He supports DOMA: Federal level -> Marriage: Man + Woman
He supports WTP: Federal level -> Removes right of privacy regarding sexual practices/orientation/reproduction under equal protection
He supports state-level SSM laws: If a state wants to allow gay marriage, they can. But other states don’t have to recognize the marriage, and neither does the government.
Accurate? How can he support a Federal-level marriage notion but at the same time say it’s a states issue?
