Ron Paul NH Meet and Greet Part 7

Ron Paul answers questions about federal laws for Handicapped people, responsibilities of government, and practical things he can do as president. Also medicare, social security, homosexual marriage, and pornography.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ron
• Paul
• NH
• medicare
• social
• security
• pornography
• homosexual
• marriage
• handicapped
• role
• of
• government
• 1984
• gay
• internet

[forsytjr]

I was there - somebody did get him some water, but it got clipped out of the video. :)

[canavideo]

Yeah, I also clipped a lot of the clapping. I used these moments to change camera angles.

[radiofriendly]

get this guy a drink of water!

[boomdig]

What other presidential candidate would stand in someone's back yard with a karaoke machine and answer questions? It just goes to show how accessible Ron Paul is. He has nothing to hide.

[brucevdk]

The question remains, do you want to have the same rights and benefits under Federal law as heterosexual couples (which could be achieved through civil unions and/or modifying those laws accordingly) or do you want a moral victory of some sort by having the term marriage (as defined by the Federal government) apply to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples?

[ratpat]

If need wikipedia will give you direct links to the text of those two parts of the law. That's why I am strongly against individual state. There have been a number of law suites about the issue. Not they don't transfer to the state (there would be no way for them to, there federal maters), regardless of whether a state recognizes gay marriage those benefits and protections are only for heterosexuals. When it comes to civial unions, even within states, it becomes even more complicated

[takadi]

Are you sure that's how it works? Wouldn't DOMA automatically make those Federal marriage laws under state jurisdiction? If a state recognized gay marriage, those benefits and rights would be also be recognized in that state, right?

[ratpat]

Its ignorant to suggest the Government doesn't play a role in the issue, and beveling otherwise doesn't change that fact that it does. These laws shouldn't be denied because of sexuality:

Crimes & Family Violence; Social Security, Housing & Food Stamps; Taxation; Veterans' Benefits; Civilian & Military Service Benefits; Employment Benefits; Immigration & Naturalization; Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property; Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest; Loans, Guarantees, and Payment

[ratpat]

There are over 1,049 federal laws provide benefits, rights and privileges based on marital status. Even if a gay couple is legaly allowed to marry based on how there state defined marriage, they would be denied the rights to those 1,049 laws because the federal government doesn't recognize them. That's the reality of how it is. That's perfectly expectable to you, that those rights should be only based on person sexuality?

[ratpat]

In the last comment I wasn't talking about the federal governments role in defining marriage, but since it felt the need to pass DOMA (a federal laws) it has taken upon itself to define marriage in exclusive terms. DOMA provides that no state has to recognize same sex marriage, and that the Federal Government many not recognize same sex marriages.

[takadi]

The Federal government has absolutely NO right at all to define what marriage is. And in an ideal world, no government should, but giving the states more rights transfers more power to the people to define their versions of marriage. And correct me if I'm wrong, but DOMA doesn't grant federal marriage rights to anyone, it's a state rights bill. The title is just misleading

[ratpat]

Yes I am. A constitutional amendment should be out of the question either way. DOMA is exactly what its title suggests, Defense of Marriage, as if it needs to be protected. Even within states that have same sex marriage or civil unions DOMA is unjust by saying that federal marriage rights, tax filing, bankruptcy, inheritance (and so one) can only belong to heterosexuals since marriage for the federal government is only between a man and a women. DOMA only weakens even the argument you make.