Op-ed says Ron Paul is no conservative on issue of marriage

But the undeniable fairness of letting people make their own contracts rings true; that is freedom.

Until you try to get insurance coverage under your spouse and an insurance company says you don't have the "right kind of contract" or one not recognized by them. Or any other situation where an official sanction removes any doubt of the validity of the contract.

then you would go to an insurance company that does......really simple.

For 99% of Americans, that means changing jobs. Yeah, real simple.

Freedom isn't simple. It requires work, it requires us to make decisions, some of them hard, to live as we desire. SO WHAT?

Freedom isn't simple. It requires work, it requires us to make decisions, some of them hard, to live as we desire. SO WHAT?

Lacking any other information, I'm going to assume that you are a straight male. You have the right to get married in a civil ceremony or in a religious ceremony...or not.

All gays are asking for is the same right and for it to be recognized in the same way (and they are not even asking for the religious part -- by the way, ask Ron Paul how he feels about gay marriage within his church -- I guarantee you'll get a different answer than the "sure."). So which makes more sense? Giving equality to those who do not have it? Or abolishing the concept altogether. You know, one solution to the white only restrooms would have been to get rid of the restrooms. But we didn't do that, did we?

Marshall, that brings up one point I keep trying to make about gay marriage -- why say no when having gay marriage will help the economy? I mean, think of all the catering, the flowers, etc that go into a wedding. By saying to a certain group of people "sorry, you can't get married" you are in effect limiting the amount of business these companies can do by saying only heterosexual couples can do business with you. Heck, put into that perspective, gay marriage is pro-business and therefore Republicans should be JUMPING at the chance to legalize it! :)

If the Feds and states dropped the recognition of marriage altogether, opting for civil unions, much of the grousing and belly-aching we all now suffer through would evaporate like morning fog.

I will open up a place that does and make lots of money.

How can you guarantee that the marriage you perform will be recognized by all the various institutions the gay couple requires?

If the Feds and states dropped the recognition of marriage altogether, opting for civil unions, much of the grousing and belly-aching we all now suffer through would evaporate like morning fog.

Why don't we just let gay people get married in the eyes of the state and call it a day?

I almost always opt for the simplest solution. Usually works.

So, government forcing private institutions to do something is freedom?

what the hell do you mean...that gay couples require?????

All the businesses and institutions you, as a straight person, interact with? Guess what? So do gay people. Their bank, their children's schools, their mortgage company, their doctor, their local hospital, their local government, etc. What guarantee can you make that your new marriage factory will produce marriages that will be recognized by ALL of those entities?

because that would be government forcing institutions to recognize something against their beliefs.......and that is not freedom.

And continuing to let gay individuals to be a sub-class with a reduced set of rights IS freedom?

and that would be getting government out of marriage altogether...its none of their damn business what you or I do.

That's fine if you are a society of one, a nation unto yourself. But in interaction with all the other members of society, we run into myriad situations that requires laws to govern that interaction. Do we really need to have this civics lesson again?

If a company doesnt recognize it...then start a company that does...its called freedom......

So if I cannot find an insurance company that recognizes my individualized form of marriage, then I must start my own insurance company? What kind of a solution is that? Oh, that's right. A Libertarian solution where every man and/or woman is a self-sufficient, self-contained island.

No, I live in the real world. A world where I don't have to slaughter an animal and personally tan its hide just because I want some shoes.

by the way, ask Ron Paul how he feels about gay marriage within his church -- I guarantee you'll get a different answer than the "sure.").

Finally- an intelligent well thought out question. Here's the answer.

Marriage is a contract between people. Some are based on religious principles and love. Some are just based on love. Some churches, possibly including RP's, do not accept that homosexuality is a moral act. If a church does not consider homosexuality moral, the government has no right to force them to perform marriages. If a basic tenet of your faith is a man shall not lie with a man nor a woman with a woman nor any with the beaasts of the field, then they of COURSE will not let a man marry aman or a woman marry a woman. HOWEVER, Dr. paul's church does not make LAW, a point he knows and accepts. In fact, it is a fact he holds as supremely important. He does not consider it the right of government to prohibit gay marriage. He does not consider it the right of government to force churches that oppose gay marriage to perform gay marriages, either. If your faith prohibits homosexuality, and you are a homosexual, you have a moral dilemns to resolve- do I leave my religious sect and find one that accepts me for what I am, or do I deny what I am to conform to my religious sect's moral code? Currently, the dogma of the Episcopalian church maintains the teachings against homosexuality. Yet they ordain openly gay ministers and even bishops. Therefore, that entire sect of Christianity is hypocritical, and thus, worthy of contempt. not for being Christian, but for refusing to follow it's own teachings.

I've digressed. Ron Paul believes in individual choice. you have the right to be a member of a religion/sect that performs gay marriages. Or not. It's your right, your choice. By denying you the choice, the government has removed your rights. I support the right of GLBT community. But I'm not going to run out and marry a guy, or even bring a second woman in to my marriage. MY choice. But I have the right to do so, and the government has stolen that right from me. Dr. paul supports that right while not excercising it himself.

I oppose everything you say, sir, yet I shall defend to the death your right to say it!

I don't remember who said this basic thing, but Ron Paul lives it. as do Marshall and I.

Neale:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20030331.html

usually attributed incorrectly to Voltaire :P

thanks, belle!

are you now telling me that capitalists do not want to make money??

You'd have to ask the lunch counter owners in the Old South who prohibited blacks from patronizing their establishments. Or, more recently, the apartment owner who put the "Whites Only" sign at the pool in her complex. You'd have to ask Rand and Ron Paul who seem to think that businesses should be able to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation. You should ask them, "Why would they want to?" But since the elder Paul seems to think the majority of African-Americans are criminals, you Paul fans might not want to hear the answer. It might burst someone's bubble.

I've digressed. Ron Paul believes in individual choice.

Except when it comes to abortion. Yeah, we get it.

The private property owner CAN discriminate against people for whatever reason he/she so desires. And we, the people, can destroy that person's business for it. by simple boycotting the business and anyone who does business with it. It's called a free market. Why is it that that is so hard to understand??

By the time I get to vote though, there will probably be only one choice anyhow -- I don't even know why I even bother keeping track of the primaries (California doesn't vote until June). I may just vote for my first choice person as a protest vote.

OK, you convinced me -- I'll vote for Huntsman even though he's no longer running, he was my first choice candidate and the sanest of all those running this cycle!

belle - always the possibility that Huntsman will be Paul's VP choice

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians that has a position that makes sense on this issue. Government should not be involved in marriage. It isn't a special rights issue, it's a human rights issue. The Democratic party is spineless on this issue. Liberals should be outraged but instead they are sucked in by crafty vote pandering Democrats.

Our president won't support gay marriage because polling shows Black voters to overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

It has nothing to do with black voters. It is because our government is held captive by the de facto theocracy that exists in this country which is spearheaded by the religious Right.

So you're suggesting that there is NO separation of Church and State in government? News to me and most other Americans. Want to provide some kind of proof about that? What? Oh, there IS NO PROOF of that? Gotcha. Right.

Ok douglasq, why is the president unwilling to take a firm position publicly on gay marriage? Would we be talking about the religious right that actually has a candidate that is ok with gay marriage?

So you're suggesting that there is NO separation of Church and State in government?

No, but there is NOT NEARLY enough separation of church and state in government at this time. And Ron Paul's suggestion that we criminalize abortion providers suggest that he will not be the one to stand firm against religious encroachment into our civic life.

Would we be talking about the religious right that actually has a candidate that is ok with gay marriage?

Is that Paul? Because how can he be ok with gay marriage if he wants to do away with state sanctioned marriage in its entirety?

Abortion and gay marriage are two different things. Abortion is the debat about when a fetus is classified as a living being. Dr. Paul (note that he's a medical doctor who has personally delivered 4000+ babies) feels that it's a human as soon as egg meets sperm. Some think it's not until there is a heartbeat or a brainwave. Others think it isn't human until it can live outside the mother's body without artificial aids. There are a few who think it isn't human till it can say it is. Fighting to prevent what you consider a murder from occuring is a wee bit different than telling people who you can love. Personally, I'm torn on abortion because I can't be positive when it goes from viable tissue mass to human baby. So I argue for no abortions but cannot, with a clear conscience, criminalize them. Dr. Paul is confident. If you were confidant that a person was being murdered, would you not fight to save him/her?

Abortion and gay marriage are two different things. Abortion is the debat about when a fetus is classified as a living being.

Is it not government intrusion for the government to define when a fetus is classified as a living being? Wouldn't the Libertarian stance say that the individual mother should have the freedom to decide?

No. Or else the mother can decide the little crumb-crusher isn't human till it tells her it is. The state of being a living human determines when you have rights. So, we have to decide when it's a baby not a choice. Now, most Libertarians are on the pro-choice side. The argument goes something like this;

A woman owns her own body. Whatever occurs or grows in her body does so at her choice. If a baby is there, when it becomes a human is irrelevant. If she determines that a squatter is present in her private property, she has the right to use whatever force is necessary to remove said squatter. MY problem with this argument is, she invited the squatter in, (NOTE- for the sake of argument, we won't deal with rape here. we can save that for another day. Consensual sex only today) so she has to let the squatter move out as soon as safely possible.

she invited the squatter in

No she didn't. She consented to sex, pleasure. Unless she and a man are consciously trying to conceive, there is no invitation proffered.

I see both sides..

I see mine, because when it comes to my body, MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, there IS no other side! My body, my choice, no compromise!

I also look at history...and the eugenics program and the attachment to that

If you really want to know the history of abortion and women's right to self ownership, read a series of books addressing contraception and abortion by John M. Riddle. This argument is a very old one. The suppression of women's rights was always used by the state to justify the addition of more subjects to be used for the material enrichment of said state or to be used as canon fodder. Abortion has never been an issue of eugenics (until the 19th century) but one of suppressing women's self determination and control over the population in general.

FYI, in those few times when the state was minding its own business by not trying to control women's reproductive decisions, we used a wonderful and reliable plant named Silphium…which is now extinct because it was so reliable.

LMP- in the interests of friendship, I hesitated to say this, BUT..... If she consented to sexual intercourse, she knew that pregnancy was a possibility. She invited the result. She does NOT bear the responsibility alone. I fully understand your rather pointed response, and it is the biggest reason I am conflicted on this issue. I make no claim to be correct. I simply aim to explain where I come from. But, I ask this- is you knew that a human being, conscious and thinking, was in your womb, and you didn't want it there, would you abort it? If you knew it was just a "viable tissue mass that someday could become a human", I understand a "yes" answer. I make no bones about it- I'm a man, it isn't MY body, and my input MUSt be less important than the woman who must bear the child. But since I don't KNOW when it goes from "Choice" to "Child", I find it hard to walk away from a defenseless possible human.

You are a good friend of mine, and I REALLY do not want to offend you or lose you. So please remember we are debating, and I am NOT attacking. I constantly look for answers to MY philosophical conuncdrums on this topic, and I value your input. Hell, I value ANY input, pro or con, that will reslove it.

On the eugenics side, though, Margarette sanger was a racist scum whose primary reason for founding what evolved into Planned Parenthood was to curb the growth of undesireable races, mainly blacks. And it's working. According to statistics I read a few months ago, nearly 60% of inner city black pregnancies end in abortions. Eugenics or not, her goal is being realized.

it is a side effect of a pleasurable event.

It is only a possible side effect of sex, it is not a foregone conclusion. Believe me, if one is not consciously trying to conceive, there is no invitation!!!

death is the side effect of doing a great deal of drugs...…..

Death is an inevitability of life, it is not an inevitability of simply doing drugs. A great deal? Maybe, usually, but not always. I live in NYC, I've seen a lot. Before Guiliani we had Koch and Dinkins…NYC was decadent. :)

a speeding ticket or time in jail is the side effect to the pleasurable event of very illegal speeds in a bmw.

Not always and not if you can flirt your way out of a ticket or outrun the cop. :)

all abortion is...is trying to get out of that responsibility for poor decisions made..

Actually, it is being responsible…by not bringing an unwanted person into the world or harming it in utero by intentionally unhealthy eating and/or alcohol consumption.

because someone doesnt want responsibility of what has happened because of decisions made by them does not mean that others rights are forfeited.

No one's rights are forfeited. A fetus is not a conscious being. It has no rights. When it is capable of consciousness, not simply reflex action, you may have a point. Up until that point, your point is moot.

would rather stick to gay rights

Hear hear! I was going to add an addendum to my comment to that affect but it timed out. BTW, I still like you. :)

conscious and thinking

That's key. A fetus prior to 6-6 1/2 months has absolutely no ability to think, nor is it conscious. It has reflex action which is necessary for nerve development but it is not conscious as "consciousness" is experienced.

You are a good friend of mine, and I REALLY do not want to offend you or lose you. So please remember we are debating, and I am NOT attacking.

I KNOW THAT!!!!!!!!!! But thank you. Neither you or James are doing so. :)

Margarette sanger was a racist scum whose primary reason for founding what evolved into Planned Parenthood was to curb the growth of undesireable races, mainly blacks.

Of that I'm well aware. I wrote 19th century above but I think Sanger was actually 20th century. Eugenics as a theory in the very beginning was not about abortion but about "selective breeding" for more intelligent and physically healthy offspring on a purely voluntary basis. Sanger and Malthus and their like distorted that theory into one of governmental forced abortion and/or sterilization.

Eugenics or not, her goal is being realized.

On many levels. Wasn't Sanger one of the Fabian socialists so popular in our government and London at the turn of the last century?

My problem is that my daughter was born at 24-26 weeks. The borderline according to many doctors. Yes, she needed machines to survive long enough to live on her own. She was, effectively, a last term abortion. A C-section performed to save my wife's life, with every attempt to save the aborted fetus. Ir does make it very hard to remain neutral, or even stick to your moral principles, when the evidence lives with you disproving some of the theories about fetus/child. It makes me wonder whether we are wrong about when it has conscious thoughts. IS 6 months really the bottom figure, or is it 5? or 3 or 2 or.......? I Know that there's no way there is conscious thought when the ovum has finished it's first cellular division. Is a first trimester fetus a person? I don't THINK so, but I don't KNOW so. And, as we have all pointed out here, it's tough thing to decide. I'd be willing to bet thet even most of the staunchest Abortion rights activists sometimes wonder, in the dark of the night, whether they are correct. I sure know I wonder whether I am!!!!

My problem is that my daughter was born at 24-26 weeks.

I know. :) And I realize that both you and James are fathers. That colors your view a bit. I completely understand that. BTW, all of the children of one of my sisters were premies, one of which was born at 25 weeks. At the time, she was a Guinness Book of World Records baby. She was so tiny, she looked like a blood red kitten that fit into the palm of my 5'2 sister's hand.

IS 6 months really the bottom figure

I see it this way. The fetus/premie baby has not fully developed. The fetus/premie's viscera (stomach, intestines, colon, etc.) are not fully developed. The brain is not fully developed. Without a fully functional brain, there can be no consciousness. My niece couldn't eat, not even milk. She had to be fed intravenously because her little organs weren't capable of digesting anything at first. Without being hooked up to machines and lying in an incubator, that premie would have absolutely no means of survival. The only reason my niece is alive, as well as your daughter, is because of that extraordinary technological intervention. You also have to remember that both my niece and your daughter were wanted, you were willing to go to the greatest lengths possible to prolong and/or give the option to that developing life. But in no way would I say that my lovely niece, who is now a (very young!) mother, was "conscious" as she was lying in that plastic bubble. She didn't move, she didn't make a noise, she didn't respond to anything except having a finger run along the bottom of her foot to see that she had reflexes. I know it hurts people's feelings, I know that! But I don't think it is moral or ethical to force women into full gestation of a pregnancy just because someone else's feelings are hurt by the choices she makes for her own life. It's not that other person's life, it's not that other person's body. It's just another means of controlling women and removing self determination from our playbook. It reduces us to slaves.

VEry well said. At 26 weeks, my daughter was extubating herself. Damaging her trachea, causing her a tracheostomy she had for the next 6 years. Squeaking and complaining. definitely a human. It makes it SOOO hard to be definite. And, being a rather foreceful person, I admit to having a hard time walking away from a possible person in need. Hell, I can't walk away from an animal in need. So a baby, born or unborn, is something to be treasured. For MYSELF (no insults intended) I cannot comprehend someone not wanting that baby. It wa heartwrenching to tell the doctor to take my baby out of my wife when the baby had such a small chance of survival. We thought we were murdering a baby. My heart goes out to women who have felt forced to abort. Yet howc do I tell her NOT to, when I can't prove that my beliefs are any more valid than hers? Hell, if I can't prove that to ME, how can I prove it to her.

Sorry, my reply's below... I have to jump through hoops to do anything with my connection.

Scurvy Dog - since you don't live in the States, allow me to first say that the Libertarian Party platform here is based on the Constitution, and the three branches of government that we have. There is no faction here that I know of which advocated NO government.

Common misunderstandings about Dr Paul are that he wants no government, no regulation, etc. That's simply not true. He wants FEDERAL government limited to those powers outlined in the Constitution (no Dept of Education, for instance)

Now regarding trade, etc, that is a little more complex. I can't speak for Dr Paul and his EXACT plan, but I can give you some basics as to where he is headed with his stand on regulations and the like.

Here in America, it is a dismal and disturbing fact that more often than not, large powerful corporations either heavily influence or actually WRITE the wording for regulations. Of course, it is nearly always written in such a way that ONLY the richest companies can afford the implementation and/or enforcement of these regulations and that serves to crush competition - putting smaller companies out of business.

In addition, America seems to focus on HOW something is to be done rather than to focus on the end result. In other words, we no longer care that a new exciting innovative product is developed, but rather HOW companies are regulated in the development of that product. It has seriously affected this country's ability to be creative. As an example, the government doesn't focus on the creation of a new car engine that gets 100 mpg, instead they focus on the fact that parts A,B,C,D,X,Y and Z must be ON that car and that regulations 1-10000 must be included in it's creation. The end result no longer matters. In America, it is nearly impossible to "Build a better mousetrap".

This becomes important in things like mergers and acquisitions and/or monopolies. In Dr Paul's world of relaxed (not non-existent) regulation, mergers would absolutely occur - everyone would want to be part of a new and exciting product - but they would occur only when it makes sense. Monopolies would probably not ever happen, because we would constantly be improving our technology and new companies would be constantly created with new exciting products.

A little about laws in the Libertarian world - my rights end where they infringe on YOURS. It's as simple as that. Do I have a right to drive drunk? Absolutely not - it infringes on YOUR right to have a safe roadway. May I pollute the water supply? NO, it infringes on your right to clean water.

Suitable punishments? That's easy. The Congress may pass any law it wants which directly applies to the powers it was given under the Constitution. State Legislatures may pass any laws about the rest. Libertarians aren't about no laws. In fact, we want LESS regulations and STRONGER punishments for infractions.

Abortion is practically the ONLY situation I've been able to pinpoint which brings up the question you pose about mothers' rights vs. Child/fetus's rights. The rest are pretty cut and dried, actually.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that a) women have a right to privacy under the Constitution, which CANNOT be taken away b) without a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. Therefore, there can be no laws BANNING abortion but there may be laws REGULATING abortion - as long as those regulations serve a compelling state interest.

The beauty about this being on a State level, is that the residents of a particular state can make their personal beliefs known to their legislature, and those beliefs can be implemented by law (always subject to the oversight of the Supreme Court of the United States). More liberal states will have more liberal laws, and the more conservative states will likely enact far more stringent laws.

I hope that this explained somewhat. Thank you for your interest

Yes, one thing I have heard Paul say is that he's a strict constitutionalist... I had something to say about that but I forgot what that was.

On the subject, though - sn't amendment of the constitution also an important part of the U.S.'s evolving government? Is it not necessary, not to give or remove branch powers, but specify and adapt them to a changing world? Or are we supposed to have only white, male landowners vote? The Bill of Rights, even, wasn't pre-packaged with your constitution.

Trade is complex, I agree. And it's a good thing Ron Paul believes, in his way, in regulating commerce.

I'm aware of lobbying and its problems (actually, talking to someone from the States about this is relieving when you consider politics in my own country). But the way I see it, if you have enough money to start a competitive complex business, such as car manufacturing, you should probably have enough to keep up with regulations.

Lobbying (and maybe private campaign contributions), however, may be better off abolished.

Now, about very specific regulations, I don't see how it should necessarily impede innovation. And further, shouldn't certain companies be subject to certain regulations to protect consumers (one potential issue with libertarianism may be that not everyone's an expert on everything)?

Or will we call it fraud every time a specific detail of risk isn't disclosed to a seriously harmed consumer, and then penalise in a way likely seen unfair by both the victim and perpetrator? I think regulations on product types should be called for, not just swamped onto products. Even the government needs to fairly justify what it does.

In your own example, for instance, whatever innovations car companies can still come up with, there should be a framework for adaptation to regulation that is quickly recognised if the innovation is deemed safe, justified, etc. Effective regulation should not be hard, but then we need to talk about those lobbyists, eh?

New and exciting products aren't always replacements.

And what about the environment and scientific innovation? Would libertarianism really value them enough to encourage all those exciting advancements, and even secure hope for the preservation of our planet?

On your point about monopolies likely never happening - my questions were posed about particular markets where innovation wouldn't be a significant factor, and economic leverage and power would be far greater ones. I clarified on some conditions, but also made the point of who's to know?

Who's to define what certain specific rights are (right to clean water, etc.)? There's always diverging opinion. The fact that people are different seems like one of the biggest problems facing libertarian philosophy and a potential chaos magnet in its implimentation.

Divergences may be minority views, but if local laws cater to these, then what about people who think their rights don't change with location?

And if the federal government is supposed to be so small, will it have any trouble enforcing all the regulation and specifically defined laws and rights?

I'd like to know what you mean with regulating abortion and just how that's compatible with determination of the state.

That's about it, I think. I hope I expressed myself well.

Thanks for discussing this with me.

I'd be of the opinion that it an individuals responsibility, but then no one can collect cash from the dead. Yet, people expect payment for services rendered so they can pay their bills. An interesting conundrum isn't it?

Oh?