Paul’s position on marriage would be like Candidate B saying that states should have the freedom to make up whatever laws on, say, gun ownership that the states may like, without any Federal interference.
That kind of glosses over the fact that Candidate B voted for a bill that would forbid the Federal government from ever recognizing the legality of gun ownership. Yeah, except for that one teeny tiny itty bitty little fact that Candidate B wants the Federal government opposes gun ownership, he’s willing to let the states can do anything they want on gun ownership.
On edit, I see that you have raised the same absurdity with Paul’s position on SSM as I was attempting to illustrate.
Does he really think that, though? Are the Federal-level attempted-limits on things like SSM only applicable to the CURRENT situation of things? If he were President, would he repeal all federal-level anti-SSM bills/laws and leave it purely to the states?
Ron Paul has made it very clear that he does not believe there is such a thing as a “right to privacy” and that state governments have the right to regulate people’s sexual behavior using “local community standards as a guide.”
The only logical explanation for his actions is that his opposition to gay marriage trumps his commitment to the libretarian/state issue. His position on abortion is pretty similar: he says it’s a state issue but has introduced a bill that said life begins at conception and would have barred federal courts from hearing cases related to abortion laws. He also voted in favor of bans on “partial birth” abortions.
So how would that work? If SSM laws are handled by the states, but with things like DOMA/WTP in effect? What does that even mean?
(Thanks guys for the responses, this is really helpful for my understanding of how this stuff works. I constantly hear people being so pro-Paul but I want to understand why, or if it’s mass-duping/delusion/ignorance)
There’s no easy answer to that. This is one of those areas where the state and federal governments are always squabbling over jurisdiction (or, sometimes, trying to push the whole thing off on the other).
I guess I am just confused over what has what jurisdiction. It seems like SSM is a states issue (as it’s not endorsed any one way in the Constitution as far as I know). But… then…
Agh this is seriously giving me a headache. I’m sincerely getting a migraine. I’ve been scouring the net for information and it seems so hazy and ill-defined.
Apparently RP says he supports DOMA only for the clause that says one state shouldn’t have to recognize a SSM made in another state. The anti-hearing bills he supported try to keep certain functions confined to the state level, as they aren’t in the Constitution (amendment 10). To me, this sounds consistent, no? Support pro-state leglistation, put limits on Federal power to say one way or the other.
Is this correct?
Is marriage currently endorsed at the Federal level? Is it a states issue? Do we have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the Federal level?
Marriage is a state issue, with the exception that the Federal government has to make certain decisions on how to treat marriages for things like tax returns or government benefits. As it stands today, the Defense of Marriage Act states that the Federal government will not recognize a same sex marriage even if it was lawfully done in one of the few states that allows for that.
Let’s be clear here: the idea that Paul and others have put forward that if one state legalized SSM, that other states would be bound to also recognize that marriage, is BS. It isn’t true. Remember when states used to have laws that prohibited mixed race marriages? Did those laws spill over into states that allowed for mixed race marriages? Of course not.
I think, though, from what I am reading elsewhere – Ron Paul said he defended DOMA precisely for that reason. He doesn’t want one state to be forced to acknowledge a SSM made in another state. Isn’t DOMA to be expected from a guy like RP? He doesn’t want the Feds recognizing marriage at all, period. Marriage only exists within the confines of the state. Isn’t that his position?
Personally, I’d like to see SSM legalized everywhere, but I can’t defend why and I don’t know who has what power to do what. It seems like RP is a strict Constitutionalist who wants to keep Feds on a tight leash, bound by what’s in the Constitution, while everything else goes to the states. Why can’t marriage be put into the Constitution? Are there dangers to this sort of action?
DOMA is a federal law defining marriage. Paul says he doesn’t want the federal government to define marriage, but he supports DOMA and has tried to fend off challenges to it.
Others have commented on his economic views so I’ll pass on that. His foreign policy is for the Federal government to pull out of all relationships. Sure he wants international trade but that’s outside of Federal control. IMO we learned back in the 1930’s that isolationism doesn’t work. More recently is was largely US involvement that kept Communism from expanding more than it did. Paul would have had us sit out the First Gulf War and let Iraq do what it wanted and potentially gain control of most of the world’s oil supply.
His rationale is that US Federal action led up to these events; e.g. FDR tried to contain the Japanese before WW II and Regan/Bush supported Hussein enough that he felt emboldened to invade Kuwait. Even if I agreed with that analysis (and I don’t) we can’t pretend that suddenly pulling out of world concerns would all of a sudden nullify current US actions. My opinion is that world affairs would undoubtedly get worse at least in the short term if Paul had his way, which would lead to disaster.
I believe this is somewhat disingenuous. Paul has probably voted against every bill declaring an official Federal holiday, no matter what the cause. His MO is to oppose anything that doesn’t deal directly with personal liberty and Federal holidays, even one for MLK, doesn’t fit that.
The charge of racism in the old newsletters is a more serious matter. However I haven’t seen anything else from Paul that looks like racism and without further evidence I attach as much importance to it as Obama’s association with Rev. Wright: both were probably mistakes that don’t strongly reflect on the man.
I think this is a mischaracterization of his position. He supports DOMA because he doesn’t want the Federal government to sanction any type of “marriage” and DOMA has, in one way of looking at it, as small a Federal footprint as possible. What he’d prefer is to do away with all Federal marriage guidelines instead of adding more. To quote his Wiki page: “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want”.
If you argue that this is a contorted dance I won’t disagree but I think Paul is trying to be consistent.
I think Paul is making an honest attempt defend liberty as best he knows how, just like I think Obama is making an honest attempt to improve the US. I just disagree with how they go about it.
My opinion of Paul is that he’s so locked into his view of personal liberty that he gets lost in the forest of pragmatism. His distaste for Federal power is so strong that it leads him to wrongful conclusions, like his opposition to the Fed and the Civil Rights Act (plus the items already discussed). In the 2008 election he crossed over into paranoia when he voiced his belief in a North American Union conspiracy by the Federal government. I think he’s trying to be honest and consistent but his axioms are different from mine.
Marriage licenses are issued by states. The Federal Government recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in other countries but not a gay marriage performed in the nation’s capital.
I think a better analogy would be if a mixed race married couple would still be considered married in Jim Crow Texas. The constitutional answer was yes. I don’t see why a gay marriage doesn’t deserve as much respect as a mixed marriage. States can decline to recognize marriages that are against public policy. Incestuous or polygomist marriages are a couple of examples but its not exactly clear whether gay marriage is more like polygamy or more like myscegenation.
1812- our sovereignty was being challenged. Paul would have acted.
1861- he would have recognized the right of secession and slavery would have ended without war. The country would’ve been split, but who knows if that would have turned out to be a bad thing.
1914- Paul wouldn’t have backed the British who were starving Germany illegally with a blockade. He also wouldn’t have instigated war with Germany as Wilson did. Germany would have held more bargaining power in the treaty making process.
Germany isn’t forced to inflate its currency to pay reparations, Hitler doesn’t rise to power, WWII is avoided.
1941- We were attacked. Paul would have sought a declaration of war, as Roosevelt did.