Since today is Valentine's Day, I decided to continue my discussion on Ron Paul's position on marriage.
Suppose two men were to put on tuxedos and have a ceremony in which they pledged themselves to each other. Ron Paul would not throw these two men in jail for this. They could call themselves “married” or “united” or whatever they would want. However, RP would not be in favor of issuing them marriage licenses or recognition of the relationship as a marriage in a court of law. He would not be in favor of encouraging sodomy, but would not be in favor of banning it either. (My source for this information is a video which can be obtained on his website.)
Having said this, one must keep in mind that RP is a strong believer in states’ rights. The federal courts, in his opinion, should have nothing to say in the matter. He opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down a Texas law banning sodomy.
When asked about “don’t ask don’t tell”, RP articulated his position on this quite well. He said that, in this country, it is unfortunate that people have begun to think that their rights come from being apart of a certain group. The real reason that you have your rights is that you are a person, not because you are gay, black, or a woman. RP went on to say that when homosexual behavior in military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with it. He also said that when heterosexual behavior in the military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with this also. (I think, for this reason, women and homosexuals should not be allowed in the military at all, but I don’t know what RP thinks about this.)
The most interesting position RP takes is that the government should not define marriage. His reasoning is that, only God should define it. If some judge were to misinterpret the law and construe a homosexual relationship as being a marriage, that judge would be an activist judge. The dictionary definition should be used and we shouldn’t have to redefine it into law. If we give government the power to redefine it, then we are saying that we have the right to say marriage is whatever we want it to be. This sets a bad precedent, in RP’s opinion. I’m not sure I agree, but I would like to learn more about this argument. This isn’t the first person that I have heard this from. (Michael Peroutka was.)
The Libertarian Party platform says that the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage and therefore it should be repealed. But RP would disagree with this since he supported DOMA. The LP platform goes on to imply that basically every law there is that contains the concept of marriage or distinguishes gender should be abolished. While I agree that marriage should be a basically private covenant with which the government should rarely interfere and that 99% laws concerning marriage are unnecessary and manipulative, the LP platform clearly throws out the baby with the bath. We need to keep the traditional Biblical principles of marriage in our laws and get rid of the rest.
Suppose two men were to put on tuxedos and have a ceremony in which they pledged themselves to each other. Ron Paul would not throw these two men in jail for this. They could call themselves “married” or “united” or whatever they would want. However, RP would not be in favor of issuing them marriage licenses or recognition of the relationship as a marriage in a court of law. He would not be in favor of encouraging sodomy, but would not be in favor of banning it either. (My source for this information is a video which can be obtained on his website.)
Having said this, one must keep in mind that RP is a strong believer in states’ rights. The federal courts, in his opinion, should have nothing to say in the matter. He opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down a Texas law banning sodomy.
When asked about “don’t ask don’t tell”, RP articulated his position on this quite well. He said that, in this country, it is unfortunate that people have begun to think that their rights come from being apart of a certain group. The real reason that you have your rights is that you are a person, not because you are gay, black, or a woman. RP went on to say that when homosexual behavior in military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with it. He also said that when heterosexual behavior in the military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with this also. (I think, for this reason, women and homosexuals should not be allowed in the military at all, but I don’t know what RP thinks about this.)
The most interesting position RP takes is that the government should not define marriage. His reasoning is that, only God should define it. If some judge were to misinterpret the law and construe a homosexual relationship as being a marriage, that judge would be an activist judge. The dictionary definition should be used and we shouldn’t have to redefine it into law. If we give government the power to redefine it, then we are saying that we have the right to say marriage is whatever we want it to be. This sets a bad precedent, in RP’s opinion. I’m not sure I agree, but I would like to learn more about this argument. This isn’t the first person that I have heard this from. (Michael Peroutka was.)
The Libertarian Party platform says that the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage and therefore it should be repealed. But RP would disagree with this since he supported DOMA. The LP platform goes on to imply that basically every law there is that contains the concept of marriage or distinguishes gender should be abolished. While I agree that marriage should be a basically private covenant with which the government should rarely interfere and that 99% laws concerning marriage are unnecessary and manipulative, the LP platform clearly throws out the baby with the bath. We need to keep the traditional Biblical principles of marriage in our laws and get rid of the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment