Defending Ron Paul: Gays, Lesbians, and Marriage

[RonPaulPatriots]

Ron Paul believes in the Freedom to make our Own decisions, That's the true meaning of Freedom, our chose what ever we choose.

[RonPaulPatriots]

This is such a great video bro, Thank you for this info. Wish everyone would watch this!

[waterspindle]

you have no right to rights of benefits from your employer as recognised for straight married couples. your speculation does not aid in the dialogue or add to previously and obviously defined debate points.

if you don't like it, move? I guess that's what certain people of Germany had to do. Are you really that fucking stupid?

[DavidKretzmann]

@waterspindle We oppose forced segregation just as we oppose forced integration. Government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and giving married couples privileges that single folks cannot have. If you know of a business that openly discriminates against gay individuals, protest them, picket them, and boycott them. Sustainable change comes from the ground up, not through top-down government legislation.

If that's a "f***ing stupid" argument, I'd love to hear your ideas.

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

You're right -- the article makes it sound like Paul would disband Social Security immediately.  What I gather from you is that would be a gradual phase-out over many years, funding it from different sources.

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

Thanks for being willing to read it again. The larger point he arrives at, and it comes as a result of examining the issue and history as a whole, is that marriage equality is a matter ultimately for the Supreme Court and not individual states.

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

In addition to the Constitution, we have The Bill of Rights -- and the reason we have a federal government is to define and make laws upholding them. Mr. Olson makes the case better than I possibly can. I wish that you would comment on the specifics of it (rather than simply observe that it is well-written).

[DavidKretzmann]

@masterfulmusic1 You offer me with no specifics about Mr. Olson's article, either. Picking and choosing points to respond to out of a four page article is not a quick process, but I will look at it again and get back to you. The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and was a critical foundation of the Constitutional Republic. The Supreme Court cannot simply ignore one of the Amendments to increase federal power. (This goes for the PATRIOT Act and the 4th Amendment, etc.)

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

Let's just be clear: what you are, in essence, saying is that LGBT people are not entitled to the same civil right to marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals -- in the present world of government, as we know it.

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

You have indicated that laws regarding marriage should not discriminate. As long as we do still have laws -- then will you please allow them to be of one standard; i.e., to view this as a matter of civil rights.

[DavidKretzmann]

@masterfulmusic1 On a state level, I would probably support such legislation. However, furthering government's involvement in marriage will only lead to further tension and separation of people based on groups and categories. If you truly desire equality, then government laws should not be your priority. Plus, there are no powers in the Constitution granting government the ability to define what marriage is. General governing issues are to be left to the states.

[DavidKretzmann]

@masterfulmusic1 I should have said that the federal government, under the Constitution, has no ability to define what marriage is. Congress has 18 enumerated powers granted under Article 1 Section 8, and the 10th Amendment is explicit that all issues not left to the federal government, or denied to the states, are to be left to the states or the people themselves.

If the federal government can define what marriage is and isn't and who you can marry, what can't the federal government do?

[masterfulmusic1]

@DavidKretzmann

David you have succeeded in showing me the commonality of our thinking more than I thought possible. I think you right -- this new world order you seek, and of which I will be a part -- will surely begin with the imminent collapse of the dollar. In the meantime, you have pointed out Ron Paul's (and your) willingness to temper idealism with practicality by starting where our society is right now and not wishing it were already decimated.

[masterfulmusic1]

@Fireball1013

What I mean by a "fixed mindset" is an unwillingness to consider an argument on which you have decided your mind is already made up. From the way you frame your remarks on "gay marriage" it's clear to me that you have not listened to all the angles, specifically as presented in the article by Mr. Olson I referred you to.  I doubt you will, but I would appreciate it if you would.

[masterfulmusic1]

@Fireball1013

Matt, in a world where all voluntary relationships are equal, I can live with your definition-under-duress of marriage. At the moment, however, what we have are a mishmash of conflicting and discriminatory state and federal laws that have to be reconciled, and not merely by wishing them away.

Ron Paul (and Obama, for that matter) are viewing this as a states' issue. I believe it will be rightfully decided by the Supreme Court as a matter of federal civil rights.

[masterfulmusic1]

@Fireball1013

Matt, in a world where all voluntary relationships are equal, I can live with your definition-under-duress of marriage. At the moment, however, what we have are a mish-mash of conflicting and discriminatory state and federal laws that have to be reconciled, and not merely by wishing them away.

Ron Paul (and Obama, for that matter) are viewing this as a states' issue. I believe it will be rightfully decided by the Supreme Court as a matter of federal civil rights.

[masterfulmusic1]

@Fireball1013

Matt, in a world where all voluntary relationships are equal, I can live with your definition-under-duress of marriage. At the moment, however, what we have are a mish-mash of conflicting and discriminatory state and federal laws that have to be reconciled, and not merely by wishing them away.

Ron Paul (and Obama, for that matter) are viewing this as a states' issue. I believe it will be rightfully decided by the Supreme Court as a matter of federal civil rights.

[Kindrickskayaks]

Thats right! We dont need permission to marry. Did George Washington or Thomas Jefferson get a marriage lic.? No, cause just like us, We The People don't need the governments permission! Ron Paul 2012.

[upgrade01a]

*more information like this :-) i meant to say

[upgrade01a]

Nice video, and you are welcome for the comments. I appreciate you getting back to me. It shows great courtesy. We need more information and less mud slinging or personality attacks. We are not attacking the personalities of Obama, Romney, or Perry, but their policies and their actions as politicians. The rest of the stuff can wait 'till after the election ;)

[DavidKretzmann]

@upgrade01a We appreciate your support. We'll be making more videos encouraging people to do their own research and really understand the importance of supporting Ron Paul this election. We certainly don't want to demonize folks who might disagree with us, but rather intrigue them to explore these ideas of individual liberty.

[masterfulmusic1]

Matt, I urge you, especially, to put aside your fixed mindset long enough to give the ideas in that argument your full consideration -- though I do doubt that that is possible.

Currently marriage is a civil right, meaning that there has to be unified standard at the federal level, as the Supreme Court so ruled in overturning laws that denied blacks the ability to marry whites and vice versa. The same logic must be applied to LGBT's -- as long as federal institution of marriage exists.

[Fireball1013]

@masterfulmusic1 Jack, I think what you meant by 'fixed mindset' was my belief that I do not believe a unified standard is necessary. If I must have a national standard, it would say something to the effect of "marriage is a voluntary institution between any two or more human parties,and as such, is protected under law. Federal marriage privileges are hereby abolished and hereunto no additional oversight of voluntary arrangements will commence." The struggle is adaptability and fairness.

[masterfulmusic1]

Please consider the nearly impeachable arguments by Ted Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General under Bush, and a leading conservative, in "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," first published in Newsweek. I tried to publish the link here, but the site won't let me.

[DavidKretzmann]

@masterfulmusic1 "any association that is voluntary should be permissible in a free society." -- Ron Paul

We need to move away from a government nanny-state, not toward it. Currently the only benefits to a legal marriage are tax credits, special privileges, etc. THAT is what we need to change. Shrinking the size of government would make legal marriage a non-issue. We expect too much from government intervention; rights do not come from government.

[masterfulmusic1]

I can envision your world in which government is completely removed from the institution of marriage, where there are no legal benefits to marriage, and, indeed, a world where it will be so unpopular to discriminate against anyone for all the usual things that not denying LGBT's the same benefits to marriage that everyone else now enjoys will no longer be an issue. Unfortunately, we have to right the wrongs of the current system before destroying it.

[DavidKretzmann]

@masterfulmusic1 "We have to right the wrongs of the current system before destroying it."

Exactly. But to right the wrongs, the system necessarily must be destroyed. We right the wrongs of U.S. imperialism by bringing the troops home and slashing military spending. We right the wrongs of overspending by cutting back and living within our means. We right the wrongs of marriage discrimination by returning the power of liberty to individuals to make their own contracts and decisions.

[upgrade01a]

Legalize liberty in 2012. We can do it with our technology and registering to vote Republican (this one time). Everything else is extremely tiny compaired to our foreign policy. It is time to bring the troops home. Eliminate the debt, and legalize freedom for everybody, and not just conservative Christians. I am putting my reputation on the line by crossing over to vote for Paul. You Republicans better not let me down ;-) Liberty!

[DavidKretzmann]

@upgrade01a We are not Republicans either, but you can be sure we'll register Republican to vote for Ron Paul! Yes, for Liberty! Thanks for the comment.

[upgrade01a]

Yes, he does not want government to become the parent or the nanny state. Other people want to reprogram our neural networks like some sort of AI experiment. Marriage is a definition of a word that everybody understands what it means. Even conservative republicans understand what is meant by a "gay marriage". All natural languages work this way. All words evolve over time. Pick up an olde English book and try and read it. Stop subsidizing people having kids with tax breaks. Eliminate!