Alex Blaze

Ron Paul: Ban marriage

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 11, 2007 7:53 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: 20/20, John Stossel, libertarianism, marriage, Ron Paul, states' rights

In case you've never witnessed a libertarian mutual j/o session, for your edification here's Ron Paul being interviewed by John Stossel:


On the issue of gay marriage, it really doesn't matter what any of the presidential candidates think. They're not in a position to regulate marriage - as Paul points out himself, it's a state function. The only thing that really matters is whether he would oppose DOMA, and he's already let us know that he won't.

Well, I guess Paul's embarrassingly reactionary We the People Act is also a piece of federal legislation that concerns same-sex marriage, but I don't expect to see that coming before any president any time soon.

It's interesting to see a presidential candidate take up the "ban marriage" mantle. It's definitely not a popular position. Too bad his reasoning behind it is simply idiotic - the government's been involved in marriage since colonial times in the US, not since 100 years ago. And it wasn't made into a legal institution because of STD's (only a few states even require an STD screening and marriage was around long before those tests existed); it became a legal institution to have a system of allocating, assuming, and dividing property.

This might seem like a few incorrect facts, but it just highlight why libertarians annoy me to no end. They usually take their interpretation of a text (like the Constitution), assume that that reading is universal, then make up a bunch of facts and warp some reasoning to support their own personal prejudices.

Much like Christian fundamentalists do with the Bible.

I mean, how can DADT be libertarian? I dunno, but apparently it can. And forced pregnancy? Ron Paul seems to think that's libertarian as well. Maybe because "libertarian" doesn't refer to substance but rather to a style of argumentation.

But anyway, hearing ban marriage on a national medium is kinda fun. But I like the Hidden Cameras reasons better.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Forced Pregnancy, what a concept.
The most discriminated group in the United States
is the Unborne.

There is only one occasion sexual intercourse
leads to forced pregnancy, for those who don't know
that is called Rape.

Forced Pregnancy...
Interesting concept...

Take Care
Susan Robins

Alex Blaze said:

"but it just highlight why libertarians annoy me to no end."

Let me tell you what annoys me to no end. When an individual is willing to wholly give up their identity and instead blindly supports a political party who happens to be pandering to their specific "people group" of the moment, i.e. the LGBT blogosphere, and therefore holds the presentiment of blind allegiance from the rest of the community.

You are not only historically wrong but you do a disservice to readers by failing to actually research the history of marriage and report on the story accurately.

Neither states nor the federal government were involved in the regulation of marriage until the dawn of the 20th Century. (Utah gained statehood in 1894 only after agreeing to an anti-polygamy clause in their State Constitution)

Yes Justices of the Peace and other magistrates performed the ceremony but there was no license required, i.e. regulation, to be married as even common law marriages were upheld in disputes of property et al. Therefore, there was no government regulation of marriage which is what Representative Ron Paul said in the interview of the YouTube video listed in your haphazardly written article.

As an individual first it pains me to no end that we as a community would blindly follow any one political party. As they are not so interested in being our advocates as they are in recruiting another "people group" to blindly follow them like sheep to the voting booth.

In conclusion, my partner and I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians during past elections. We prefer to vote for the individual, not which party can placate to us in the short term. Think for yourself...We the Sheeple, is the same type of mentality that led us into an unjustified pre-emptive war.

You seem to have very superficial understanding of Paul's position - try some other interviews regarding abortion, the one on Live was very interesting.
Marriage is a contract. Paul says that the states began regulating (i.e. invalidating, forbidding etc.) this contract ~ 100 yers ago. It does NOT follow that marriage did not exist before that. It follows, that the government did not REGULATE marriage before that. The governments did ENFORCE the marriage - as they did with most other contracts.
Please, could you cite your sources about extent of government regulation of marriage before 1900?

Regarding the interpretation of constitution - it would be helpful if you provided your interpretation of constitution and discuss why your interpretation is valid while Paul's is not. Otherwise we could end on Napolitano's 'which part of "shall write no law" you don't understand'?

And as for the DONT: you seem to have heard the first sentence and did not hear the rest. Maybe being libertarian refers to the style of argumentation - trying to understand the reasons why somebody has certain position. You are not libertarian, are you?

I totaly agree Allison...
Until marriage was made illegal in this country
No License was required, and no proof of marriage was issued. Marriage was a civil contract
between two people without the government's
medaling.

Take care
Susan Robins

Allison~

What party are you referring to?

Since when I have I had blind allegiance to Democrats? Look through the archives - they get it too.

Unless you think I have blind allegiance to Republicans. That makes about as much sense. Check the archives - there's not much blind following of them either.

Or the Greens? Communists? I actually don't know what party you're referring to.

He didn't say anything about regulation or anything more nuanced than:

There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.

"Only churches dealt with marriage" until 100 years ago? And the license was started because of diseases even though only like half a dozen states require an STD screening?

Give me a break.


Andy~

Why is it important that I provide an interpretation of each section of the Constitution?

I was pretty much just saying that Paul and others like him will whine, piss, and moan to no end if you don't agree with their interpretation of the Constitution. I wasn't saying that his interpretation was wrong (not here), but his idea is that there's only one interpretation, and that's his, and all laws should stem from that. I don't need to provide an interpretation of the entire thing to say that he chooses a silly way to defend himself in general.


Sue~

We just have to disagree on abortion, I think, but my point above is that if there is only one interpretation to the Constitution, if these issues are all simple enough to be put straight up right next to the text and decided from there, then why does his position on this issue not correlate with the Libertarian Party's?

His whole thing is (to me) arrogantly stating things like "The government should" or "The government should not" based on the Constitution, not on what's best for people. Fine, but then if the Constitution is that simple and we can just look to it and see what's legal and what's not (as both the LP and Paul believe), then what's the disagreement?

Is the world, in fact, a little more complicated than they both let on?

Alex Blaze said:

"What party are you referring to?"

I am referring to the 'collectivists' which 9 times out of 10 is the Democratic Party, but thanks to Mr. Sanders also covers the Socialist, and the the greens, and the communists

Basically what I have seen from Bilerico, HRC, LOGO, The Advocate, and the general LGBT blogosphere is a group placating to the Democratic Party especially concerning the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election.

The lack of understanding here is enormous. You seem incapable of separating Civil Rights, or those rights granted from government and Natural Rights those rights which we are born with.

What Representative Paul says is that government has no dominion over marriage because we are born with the right to love and associate whomever we so choose. Government cannot legislate love nor chosen associations.

What government can regulate is the Civil Contract as it relates to fiduciary, property, dependents, etc. Prior to 1900 government regulated the Civil Contract not the Marriage itself.

After 1900, under the guise of health concerns, government began to actually regulate the Marriage itself in hopes of keeping the races pure, ending polygamy, and inbreeding. So was born the Marriage License, and thus the regulation and legality of the institution of Marriage.

In order to understand this you must first try and understand Civil -vs- Natural rights, until you do this you argue in the affirmative for the regulation and gate keeping of marriage by government. When in all reality they have no say in who we love nor can they discriminate based on sexuality when it comes to the civil contract.

But since we have allowed them say over our Natural right to love whom we choose, with the creation of the marriage license, they have and will continue to deny us the legal protections of the civil contract. This of course flies in the face of the 14th Amendement / Equal Protection Under the Law.

Why we have allowed this argument to lay dormant in lieu of seeking permission to marry from Big Brother, is a source of great discontent and further illustrates that we as a community are willing to acknowledge a master/slave relationship tied to the benevolence of the current crop of politicians.

We toe the Democratic Party line here? That's probably why everyone was in favor of the Dems leadership's position on ENDA and hate crimes leg here....

Natural vs. Civil Rights? Seriously? You know, just because you can make up a distinction, doesn't mean that someone who doesn't get health care, etc., is any less sick, injured, or dead.

And I can love whom I want with or without marriage, TYVM.

Actually Alex Dr Paul is a Paleo-Republican (old school)

Just one thing to say on the abortion issue.
In the last century black people were considered to be what was it something like 3/16 of a man.

Women were considered to be that or less, just property...

GLTB folk were (and still in some places) considered to be mentally defective.

The last frontier of human rights is the Unborne who are slaughtered at a rate that is startling.

Some day the human race will grow up enough to have an appreciation of life. and perhaps the sense of sex being some kind of recreational activity that justifies the killing of human beings and the spread of STD's will be seen as archaic, maybe even savage.

As always i find your posts thought provoking and please keep in mind while we may disagree i respect your thoughts and look forward to reading them.

Take care
Sue Robins


Welcome back to the site, Allison. It's been a while. But Ron Paul brings you back? *sigh*

First, let me say that I actually agree with Allison on a few things. Marriage was a religious institution before the government got involved about 100 years ago so they could weed out inbreeding in general and polygamy in Mormons. It didn't become a civil institution to pass property on - that was already covered by wills - which date back to the 1500s.

But... We're Democratic apologists? Allison, you used to argue endlessly with Chris Douglas, a local Republican. You know the Libertarian candidate for Indiana Secretary of State guest blogged here.

And, really. Is there a Libertarian running? Because if Libertarian is the way to go, why support the Republican? If being Libertarian is the right party to belong to, why did Paul switch? So he could possibly win. That's why.

Like it or not, we've become a two party system. It sucks, I know. But pumping Ron Paul as the great Libertarian hope when he's already flipped to another party himself? That's priceless.

What a breath of fresh air Allison.
Most people have neither read the Constitution of the United States nor have they read the federalist and anti-federalist papers to try and understand the intent of our forefathers.

To further alienate people from the law of the land schools and lawyers have advanced the notion that our forefathers spoke some long dead language that requires tramslation by someone who was trained to do so..
This is so far from the truth that it would astound our forefathers.

Anybody living today can find a copy of an 1800 dictionary and know what our forefathers meant.
the rest is the application of common senese.



But since we have allowed them say over our Natural right to love whom we choose, with the creation of the marriage license, they have and will continue to deny us the legal protections of the civil contract. This of course flies in the face of the 14th Amendement / Equal Protection Under the Law.


People in this day and age have no concept of what a License really is.

Marriage was made illegal at the turn of the last century. The only a person could marry outside of states that practice "common law" was to obtain a license and turn over their right to marry and love whom they choose. A license is a document that allows you exception to the law, it is also an agreement that you will forfeit some right or rights in order to keep that license.

Here is an example more people can relate to.

at the turn of the century and up until about the thirties a driver's license was not required in most states. In many states exceptions were made based on a person's livelihood. these were exceptions like the transport of food from farm to market. Roads were designated for this activity and any person over the age of ten in many states could drive most vehicles found on a farm on these roads. This exception died out in the mid 70's most everywhere.

What do you give up with a drivers license?
Do you really have to ask?
You give up your fourth amendment and to an extent your fifth amendment. Don't believe me?
Just try to refuse a policeman when he asks for your driver's license.

Beginning in the twentieth century the move to license every significant activity took over this country. Every federally issued license requires that you give up at least your fourth amendment rights. Just ask anybody who sells firearms for a living...


The framers of the constitution never intended us to have license our activities that includes marriage.

unfortunately we have strayed far from the intent of our founding fathers.


Take care
Susan Robins

Bil Browning said:

"Welcome back to the site, Allison. It's been a while. But Ron Paul brings you back? *sigh*

Thank you, Kelly still reads and I have been contemplating "The State of the Community" recently, so I hoped over from Advance Indiana. But that is a whole other post. The Ron Paul article was a nice bonus though.

Bil Browning said:

But... We're Democratic apologists? Allison.....

Well when you run a series entitled "Who's Going to Win the LGBT vote and offer only Democrats for consideration, it sure begins to lean that way.

In reality though it is more about a mentality of collectivism and who will pander to us and invite us to the big dance more so than one particular party.

But the throw in LOGO who only held a Democratic Candidate debate when three Republicans said they would come on and debate issues one of whom was Representative Paul.

Then there is The Advocate writing in what one could only assume was a drug induced high that "Rudy Gulianni is the most gay friendly candidate.." Are you f@--' serious the guy is a fascist.

And I see that the LGBT community is well on its way to become yet another watered down homogenized voting block. And watered down homogenized voting blocks are easier to keep dependent and controlled.

Just ask the black community what undying loyalty to a political party has done for them. 3 years removed from Katrina and the Democratically controlled Congress still authorizes war supplemental bills while New Orleans lays in waste.

And this is just the latest slap in the face since the Democrats took off their white hoods, donned suits and ties and figured out how to control "those uppity blacks" as Senator Byrd once said in the well of the Senate.

So why is it the LGBT community wants to be the latest lap dog for the Democratic Presidential candidates?

Do you honestly think that government gives a rats ass about equality? When Barney Frank (D-MA) threw the trans community under the bus when it came to ENDA. A bill that had no chance in hell of becoming law while King George the II presides.

All it did was show that the politicians are more concerned with controlling who gets into the dance, instead of trying to make America a more accepting place.

For the record, I did not nor do I support ENDA, just another example of govenrment yearning to be the gate keeper.

Bil Browning said:

"And, really. Is there a Libertarian running? Because if Libertarian is the way to go, why support the Republican? If being Libertarian is the right party to belong to, why did Paul switch? So he could possibly win. That's why."

He ran as a Libertarian in 1988, since then he has run and been elected as a Republican representative to Congress. He ran as a Libertarian to get the message out, but quickly found out the major political party was yet again a gate keeper to the process. They control who has ballot access and debate access. It is but a shell game.


Bil Browning said:

"Like it or not, we've become a two party system. It sucks, I know."

No it is a one party system, I implore you to research how often the Republicans and Democrats work in tandem to ensure ballot access requirements are ridiculous. That taxpayers pay for their primaries which are actually private party conventions, that a portion of the monies derived from "vanity" license plates gets split amongst each of the "two" parties.

The sooner you realize that it is a one party system masquerading as two the sooner we can begin to live truly free.

It is simply a system to sustain the aristocrats power over the plebeians. Nothing more.

If marriage wasn't a civil institution, Bil, then how did a woman's legal status change when she got married back in colonial days and antebellum America?

One of my closest friends in college was a history major and she did her thesis on divorced women during westward expansion and she pored over marriage and divorce documents from the second half of the 1800's. There was some definite law around this issue.

Now the distinction between that and a license, as Allison and Sue are making, is more nuanced and has some truth to it. I just don't think that's what Paul meant, especially when he said that "only churches dealt with marriage". The licenses comes up in the next sentence, but really that's not his point - his main point was that the state/gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, not just get out of the licensing.

Sue~

That's just the sort of argument that devolves upon itself. Back to my earlier question, if what the "Framers" (who apparently should dictate what we do nowadays) said and meant was in plain English and everyone could understand it, and if they all agreed, then why do Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party disagree on abortion and DADT, as well as a few other issues? If it's that simple, then shouldn't they both come to the same conclusion?

I know he's not a Libertarian exactly, but he does employ the same reasoning they do.

And I totally love the fact that you spend a lot of time commenting on this site and put thought into your comments. I also appreciate your insight here. I hope you don't read me disagreeing with you as an attack. :)

Something we can all agree on:

Then there is The Advocate writing in what one could only assume was a drug induced high that "Rudy Gulianni is the most gay friendly candidate.." Are you f@--' serious the guy is a fascist.

I can't answer the DADT question very effectively except to draw from my own feelings on the subject. While GLBT folk are certainly as much American as everyone is, i feel there is no place for sexual expression in the military period. This is the kind of thing that breaks down discipline and will destroy the cohesiveness of a military unit. Anybody who is currently in the military or has been in the military in the last 15 or so years knows how strict the armed forces are in regard to sexual harassment between mixed sex personal. DADT is a beginning in what will become the integration of mixed sexual preference military personal and it is a beginning, give them time. As for Abortion you are asking the wrong person there.

In terms of the Constitution Dr Paul in my opnion right on when it comes to his beliefs on those issues he outlined. He believes in a weak federal government and strong state government which is what the Tenth Amendment meant to convey.

One thing people loose sight of when it comes to what the framers of the constitution meant can be summed up below in a couple of simple statements...

First Man and Women are responsible for their own actions and when they violate the rights of another person or do not follow the laws of their state should be held responsible for their actions. The central theme through out the constitution is individual rights are paramount

The Constitution affirms those rights that exist at birth or sometimes referred to as God Given rights.


Second the Constitution grants (note that word) the governments certain powers and spells them out with clear boundaries. The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) spell out the limits that government must work within. and it doesn't make exceptions they are clear and concise, yes even the second amendment which when you read the federalist papers will show the intent of the second amendment to insure that the people have ultimate recourse against a government that has overreached it's constitutional boundaries. Armed revolt is the last resort of an oppressed people and the framers of our government recognized that.


By the way Alex I don't see you as attacking me quite the contrary as i said i respect your views agreement is optional. I would be less of a person if i didn't consider disagreement as an opportunity to learn.


Take care
Susan Robins

Okay, I cannot keep going around in circles because we all know the definition of crazy...so one last time....

Alex Blaze said:

"If marriage wasn't a civil institution, Bil, then how did a woman's legal status change when she got married back in colonial days and antebellum America?"

There was a Civil Contract and it had numerous laws that solely applied to the fiduciary, property, and dependents bequeathed from the partnership. There was also laws pertaining to the disillusion of the Civil Contract just as there are and were laws on how different types of businesses were formed and dissolved.

The reason for the "legal status" change for women was that during the Colonial and Antebellum eras women were not considered equal nor could they own property, but upon the dissolution of the Civil Contract a women could own property if it was gained during the time of the partnership.

As a final example that while the civil contract was regulated, the legality of whom was allowed to partner with ehom was not legally regulated. Anyone could partner with any other individual.

Please read this is important to understanding....
The most widely known version of this non licensed partnership pre-twentieth century where anyone could partner with anyone and yet enjoy the benefits of the Civil Contract was referred to as a "Boston Marriage" where two females lived together, but were thought to have been non-sexual by society at large.

Nevertheless, common law marriage law presided and was the legal basis for the partnership. "Boston Marriages" were outlawed shortly after women gained the right to vote on August 18, 1920 when the 19th Amendment was ratified and governemnt began licensing the legality of whom could marry whom. - FIN

They were

Marriage is not a church institution by the way, Bill; it started as a communal institution before it took on any other connotations. Marriage as the union of individuals has been around for quite a while. Churches simply like to paint it that way, although it shouldn't come off as a shocking revelation; deception and appropriation have been some favorite tools of the religious sector for the purpose of reaching power over the masses.