|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,787
Members6,200
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337 |
I believe Ron Paul would argue that marriage is a religious ceremony and that the government should stay out of it all together. Government sanctioning marriages I believe is a relatively new policy and one I don't agree with. A lot would need to change in order for the government to get out of the marriage business, but that I believe would be the ultimate goal for Ron Paul.
edit- Sorry, it's early, I think I just repeated what was already said.
Last edited by Nathan; 12/07/07 11:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337 |
Here's something that gives more insight to Dr. Paul's stances from wikipedia. Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding. Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or heterosexual.
Voluntary associations
Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, not subjected to judicial activism. For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize "same-sex marriages" performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow "same-sex marriage" is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[127] If made law, these provisions would allow states to regulate sexual practices and "same-sex marriage" independently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
Pretty much the Libertarian line of thought. At one time, that's where I was at. Of course that's before I experienced my "reversion" to the Faith. Libertarianism is more grounded in the "enlightenment" than many are aware (this is also true of the American brands of "conservatism" and "liberalism"). We would do well to become more grounded in Catholic Social Teaching, especially when it becomes a matter of voting for candidates for public office. We should be promoting the "Social Kingship of Jesus Christ". Unfortunately, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has not done a very good job in instructing her faithful on the specifics of Catholic Social Teaching. You can lay the blame for much of this at the feet of "Americanist" bishops such as Archbishop John Ireland (who got into serious trouble with Leo XIII over the "heresy of Americanism", and who also single-handedly almost detroyed the Greek Catholic Church in the U.S.) and his supporters, who saw America as the greatest place on the face of the Earth for the Catholic Church to prosper (Leo's objections were based upon the observation that the U.S.'s religious roots were Calvinist, and that such an assertion was therefore irrational). He, and his fellow "Americanist" bishops, saw no need to instruct his people on the Social Teachings of the Church. Now, with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and all of the other pro-death "Catholic" politicians, the "chickens are coming home to roost".
Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337 |
So do you now favor the government sanctioning marriage?
Do the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church touch on this subject?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337 |
Ahhh...Archbishop Ireland.
I also read that he encouraged and helped the Irish to come from the cities on the east coast and farm here in Minnesota. Problem was a lot of them had no experience and most of them failed, and the land was bought by the more experienced Germans.
Last edited by Nathan; 12/07/07 12:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 33 |
Surveys like this are almost always suspect because they are almost never sufficiently nuanced. We'll just say that I was surprised by the results for moi. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
So do you now favor the government sanctioning marriage?
Do the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church touch on this subject? In Catholic countries where the Church's Social Teachings are accepted, the definition of marriage usually lines up with how the Church defines it. This is a case of the State obeying the teachings of the Church. That would be the ideal situation. Of course, this assumes that the majority of the population of the country is of the Faith, or, undergoes an authentic conversion to the Faith. In the absence of that ideal situation, I see no problem with government, local or Federal, at least upholding the traditional view of marriage, as being between a man and a woman. This is wise for practical reasons. The American system has always recognized that the traditional family is to be protected, because it is the "building block" of society. Special protections are afforded to the family, because every child needs to be reared by a father and a mother, for his or her own psychological and material well-being. If you encourage the destruction of the traditional family unit, you do serious damage to children. "Heather has two mommies" causes all kinds of serious problems for Heather. If we take a strictly individualist approach to the question, at first, everybody becomes a unit. But then, ultimately, the State steps in to fill the void. Without any connection to Christianity, we become vulnerable to totalitarian ideologies. Then, you have the State setting up breeding farms, with the State becoming "Big Mommy". An approach to this question from a strictly individualist approach (a la Libertarianism) is simply inadequate. This strain in our culture is derived from the Calvinist roots of the country ("salvation is between you and God, alone".) Traditional families are in a much better position to resist a tyrranical State than mere individuals. Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
