Defending Ron Paul: Gays, Lesbians, and Marriage

This is a video series from Matt Ribar and David Kretzmann analyzing AlterNet.org's 8/26/11 article on Ron Paul:

"5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics"

More from David Kretzmann:

http://DavidKretzmann.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Kretzmann/112214274453
Twitter: http://twitter.com/David_Kretzmann

More from Matt Ribar:

Berea Students for Liberty: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Berea-Students-for-Liberty/257753897579133

The Silver Beagle: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Silver-Beagle/131027983634688

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ron
• paul
• 2012
• alternet
• progressives
• libertarians
• libertarianism
• marriage
• gays
• lesbians
• lgbt
• church
• religion
• union
• god
• individuals
• license
• interracial
• contracts
• constitution

[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

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

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 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?

[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!

[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

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.