|
|
#41
10-12-2007, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Ron Paul Serious?
[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a decent place for my random Ron Paul question...he is anti gay marriage, correct? [/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. He is anti-government-involved-in-marriage-at-all. 
|
|
#42
10-12-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Ron Paul Serious?
[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a decent place for my random Ron Paul question...he is anti gay marriage, correct? [/ QUOTE ] No. He doesn't approve of gay marriage, but he's against the federal government telling states what to do in this area. He's voted against all the federal legislation that's been tried to stop gay marriage. If he were running for a state office, the answer might be yes (although probably not, since he still disapproves of government interference in general), but as a federal politician, the answer is most definitely no.
|
|
#43
10-12-2007, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Ron Paul Serious?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This seems like a decent place for my random Ron Paul question...he is anti gay marriage, correct? [/ QUOTE ] No. He doesn't approve of gay marriage, but he's against the federal government telling states what to do in this area. He's voted against all the federal legislation that's been tried to stop gay marriage. If he were running for a state office, the answer might be yes (although probably not, since he still disapproves of government interference in general), but as a federal politician, the answer is most definitely no. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act: Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!… In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law… Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#45
10-12-2007, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Ron Paul Serious?
"We unnecessarily cede our sovereignty, some of our money and some of our power. We entangle ourselves in foreign affairs as the Founders warned against."
In exchange for ceding some of our sovereignty, money and power, we get in exchange the opportunity to influence world events. The most powerful and influential member of the United Nations is the United States. The problem with the UN is that it needs to be structured in a way that more fairly reflects the reality of the political, economic and military power of its members. (That will not be happening any time soon!) It would be nice if we paid a smaller percentage of the UN budget, but money gains influence. Unfortunately in today's world it is impossible to avoid entangling ourselves in foreign affairs.
|
|
#46
10-12-2007, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Ron Paul Serious?
[ QUOTE ]
I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and <font color="red">ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions</font> to recognize same sex marriage. [/ QUOTE ] This follows Dr. Pauls' template.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
