Ron Paul's final speech in congress

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

wintercoat:

That's because he technically doesn't change his stance, he just changes how he says things.

For example:

"I believe a State has the right to decide whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry." <-- Neutral stance

"I believe it's the State's right to decide to legalize gay marriage." <-- Pro gay marriage slant

"I believe it's the State's right to decide to ban gay marriage." <-- Anti gay marriage slant

He's said all three before. They all technically mean the same thing, that the matter of gay marriage is a State's rights issue.

He's slipperier than a hag fish, is Ron Paul.

And that is why I don't believe in "visionary" politicians like ol' Ronald "Weaselly" Paul here.

It's good news for me in any case; I won't have to deal with his fanclub's political signs any longer (seriously; there's like 6 big signs saying "Hope for America" along my daily commute. They've been up for years now).

GunsmithKitten:
-snip-

It's as if he's suggesting the democracy takes precedence over federalism.

It's as if he thinks states should be allowed to make their own decisions using the state populations views, rather then having the federal government tell them what to do.

Oddly enough, if people were forced to make these decisions for themselves they would then have to answer for them, since they made those decisions, not someone in Washington.

But responsibility is SO 1900. Instead we can say 'well I didn't vote for x guy!" or "I voted for Y guy!" and that's ALL we have to say.

Yes, it can result in 'rights' being taken away, and that's a shame, but then you have to ask yourself: At what point does the government being able to have a say in what people believe in go to far? So it's OK for them to say 'well whether you like it or not, you're going to live like this now".

People should be allowed to hate homosexuals. They should be allowed to hate white people. Or black people. Or Slavs. Or Croatians. Or heterosexuals. In time that hate will die; but when you force someone to act a way? It engenders hatred and resentment because you're not allowed to express your opinions.

Do you know why the south is probably one of the most racially calm areas in the country at the moment? It's because the two major groups had it out. They fought, on their own accord, and over time they learned about the other side and suddenly it seemed silly to be fighting over these things. They humanized their opponents and when you do that it becomes much much harder to reduce them to caricatures.

Everytime, Gunsmithkitten, that you scream and rage and cry and stomp your feet, you just make the other side think your just as crazy, just as abhorrent, just as wrong as they think you are, or as they've been told to think of you as; if you treat them like human beings then they will eventually begin to think of you as one as well, because that 'do onto others' passive aggressive bullshit works. It really does. You're quite metaphorically digging your own grave every time you call someone with this viewpoint 'fundie rubbish' or anything of that nature.

Do you realize the massive hailstorm that would erupt if a state actually passed sodomy laws? Remember the massive hailstorm in California when the black community down-voted gay marriage? That but worse. Even most Christians probably are torn on it.

I'm also just going to put this out here, here and now. Marriage IS a religious institution for those whose religion specifically mentions or defines marriage, such as Christianity. Civil Marriage are purely secular and are by all measures the exact same thing, except they do not have to be presided over by a member of the priesthood of any church or organizations, and are completely civil (governmental) in nature. The whole problem, my whole problem, is when the state tries to enforce its views on the religious, or when the religious try to enforce their views on the state. THAT is the true separation of church and state, and rendering unto Caesars what is Caesars. Not this 'oh they have ten commandants in public HRRR MUST SUE' bullshit.

http://wamu.org/news/morning_edition/12/10/26/leading_in_polls_maryland_same_sex_marriage_advocates_keep_at_it

HERE IT IS
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_in_maryland_and_maine_the_inside_strategy.html

Read this! For gods sake, read it! Maryland previously lost the initiative due to obstruction from PG and Baltimore county (largely black population) representatives! But they managed to get it by because of these people. Do the same in your own state, in your own life!

Bentusi16:

It's as if he thinks states should be allowed to make their own decisions using the state populations views, rather then having the federal government tell them what to do.

Like I said, he thinks that tyranny is okay as long as it's not Feds doing it.

Yes, it can result in 'rights' being taken away, and that's a shame, but then you have to ask yourself: At what point does the government being able to have a say in what people believe in go to far? So it's OK for them to say 'well whether you like it or not, you're going to live like this now".

Yes, I'm quite happy with my federal government telling my state population "I don't care what your personal opinion on homosexuals is, you can't throw them in prison for it."

People should be allowed to hate homosexuals. They should be allowed to hate white people. Or black people. Or Slavs. Or Croatians. Or heterosexuals.

I didn't even say they couldn't hate me, it's when laws get passed to enforce that hate.

In time that hate will die;

Just like it died with.....say, come to think of it when DID any of those hates die?

Do you know why the south is probably one of the most racially calm areas in the country at the moment?

Speaking as someone who lives in a town who, up until 1980, had it's neighboring town display a sign saying "N!gger, don't let the sun set on you in <name withheld>.", and also where a region is named after the frequent acts of murder against black people, I have to ask "it's CALM?"

They fought, on their own accord, and over time they learned about the other side and suddenly it seemed silly to be fighting over these things. They humanized their opponents and when you do that it becomes much much harder to reduce them to caricatures.

Do you LIVE here?

Everytime, Gunsmithkitten, that you scream and rage and cry and stomp your feet, you just make the other side think your just as crazy, just as abhorrent, just as wrong as they think you are, or as they've been told to think of you as; if you treat them like human beings then they will eventually begin to think of you as one as well, because that 'do onto others' passive aggressive bullshit works. It really does. You're quite metaphorically digging your own grave every time you call someone with this viewpoint 'fundie rubbish' or anything of that nature.

I'm not going to treat people who seek to destroy me nice. I dont' buy that "kill them with kindness" route.

Do you realize the massive hailstorm that would erupt if a state actually passed sodomy laws?

Considering how long states held onto those laws and enforced them with not a single state repealing them, not a lot.

Civil Marriage are purely secular and are by all measures the exact same thing, except they do not have to be presided over by a member of the priesthood of any church or organizations, and are completely civil (governmental) in nature.

No. They are not.

Civil unions lack....

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

And that's just a few of the 1000+

The whole problem, my whole problem, is when the state tries to enforce its views on the religious, or when the religious try to enforce their views on the state. THAT is the true separation of church and state, and rendering unto Caesars what is Caesars. Not this 'oh they have ten commandants in public HRRR MUST SUE' bullshit.

And I agree.

Problem is, people like Ron Paul think that the state SHOULD be allowed to enforce such religious views via law on people like me.

Nothing's going to turn me into a "state's rights" advocate, because I know precisely what my state would do when it got such power over me.

Bentusi16:

I'm also just going to put this out here, here and now. Marriage IS a religious institution for those whose religion specifically mentions or defines marriage, such as Christianity. Civil Marriage are purely secular and are by all measures the exact same thing, except they do not have to be presided over by a member of the priesthood of any church or organizations, and are completely civil (governmental) in nature. The whole problem, my whole problem, is when the state tries to enforce its views on the religious, or when the religious try to enforce their views on the state. THAT is the true separation of church and state, and rendering unto Caesars what is Caesars. Not this 'oh they have ten commandants in public HRRR MUST SUE' bullshit.

I hate this misconception that people are trying to "force" religious institutions to do something with gay marriage. Lemme clarify. If some christian SECTS do not want to marry gay people they dont have to. But some christian sects DO and cannot. What do we do now? You act like all of Christianity agrees. And they dont. One christian sect has as much right to define marriage for another christian sect anymore than a christian sect can tell a jewish sect their marriages are not defined correctly and as such they must get civil parnterships in the eyes of the law. And muslims. And buddhists. And atheists. And everyone else. Basically if youre going to make "Marriage" a religious institution you have two options:

Make it a christian only title since you decide THEY get to define it.

Decide each sect of every religion gets to define it as they so please and thus everyone can get the title if they want to should they belong to a sect that defines marriage the same way the married parties do.

Right now its inconsistent. We cant decide that christian sects get to govern OTHER christian sects on what defines marriage and then say they cant govern jewish marriages.

Blablahb:
Freedom of speech has no article that states "Therefore all citizens, if they are zealous Christian bigots, have the right to ruin someone's funeral".

Ohhhh boy. Let me put this kindly: Your knowledge of constitutional law is very weak. Allow me to try to explain it to you. The constitution doesn't need to enumerate every single instance free speech may come into play and can simply work in general terms. The fourth amendment makes no explicit mention of cars, but they're covered by it. Same is true of email. Nowhere in the fourth amendment is it mentioned, but take a gander over at United States v. Warshak.

In short, your argument is nonsensical. Also, I'd just like to point out that your argument lost (8-1, by the way), in Snyder v. Phelps. Not shocking, as the court generally casts a wide net over free speech as a concept (As seen in US v Stevens

BiscuitTrouser:

Bentusi16:

I'm also just going to put this out here, here and now. Marriage IS a religious institution for those whose religion specifically mentions or defines marriage, such as Christianity. Civil Marriage are purely secular and are by all measures the exact same thing, except they do not have to be presided over by a member of the priesthood of any church or organizations, and are completely civil (governmental) in nature. The whole problem, my whole problem, is when the state tries to enforce its views on the religious, or when the religious try to enforce their views on the state. THAT is the true separation of church and state, and rendering unto Caesars what is Caesars. Not this 'oh they have ten commandants in public HRRR MUST SUE' bullshit.

I hate this misconception that people are trying to "force" religious institutions to do something with gay marriage. Lemme clarify. If some christian SECTS do not want to marry gay people they dont have to. But some christian sects DO and cannot. What do we do now? You act like all of Christianity agrees. And they dont. One christian sect has as much right to define marriage for another christian sect anymore than a christian sect can tell a jewish sect their marriages are not defined correctly and as such they must get civil parnterships in the eyes of the law. And muslims. And buddhists. And atheists. And everyone else. Basically if youre going to make "Marriage" a religious institution you have two options:

Make it a christian only title since you decide THEY get to define it.

Decide each sect of every religion gets to define it as they so please and thus everyone can get the title if they want to should they belong to a sect that defines marriage the same way the married parties do.

Right now its inconsistent. We cant decide that christian sects get to govern OTHER christian sects on what defines marriage and then say they cant govern jewish marriages.

Marriage is a religious institution. It is a word that was invented by religions in order to explain the ordained and granted rights of two or more people being joined within a particular sect/belief system.

When you go and get married at a christian church, that huge ceremony up front means jack diddly squat from a legal standpoint. Do you know what happens afterwards?

You go into a back office with the priest and the witnesses, and you are made to sign a legal document that has absolutely no relation to the religious ceremony that just took place except tangentially by timing.

Within the walls of a church, or synagogue, or mosque, they have every right to define exactly what they consider marriage to be, as their sects go, whether muslim, catholic, jew, protestant, seventh day adventist, jehovah witnesses... Because it is their institution to decide. Outside of it, it is the civil authorities job to define civil marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage#United_States

Those within the religion also have the absolute right to protests it on the basis of morality; what is not allowed is for them to actually win. I want them shouting. I want them screaming. That's beautiful, and that's democracy, and freedom. But they cannot actually force us to adopt their morality from a civil standpoint, at least not under the U.S. constitution as the general interpretation has been under the supreme court thus far.

The only thing a 'marriage' has that a 'civil marriage' does not have is the invoking/blessing of a deity or religion. Now the problem is that many states haven't gotten around to adding that civil marriages allow same sex couples. This is an issue, and it needs to be addressed.

The thing is, we also need to put in a protection that says that explicitly. Maryland, my state, has recently allowed same-sex marriages to be performed here (until now they were recognized but couldn't be performed). However, there is a clause that says no religious institution can be sued for refusing to perform a ceremony for a homosexual couple.

And a more perfect arrangement I don't think you can find.

Bentusi16:

The thing is, we also need to put in a protection that says that explicitly. Maryland, my state, has recently allowed same-sex marriages to be performed here (until now they were recognized but couldn't be performed). However, there is a clause that says no religious institution can be sued for refusing to perform a ceremony for a homosexual couple.

And a more perfect arrangement I don't think you can find.

That, actually, is what I consider a best case scenario as well. NO church should be punished for simply refusing to perform a ceremony.

Bentusi16:

The only thing a 'marriage' has that a 'civil marriage' does not have is the invoking/blessing of a deity or religion.

The thing is, we also need to put in a protection that says that explicitly. Maryland, my state, has recently allowed same-sex marriages to be performed here (until now they were recognized but couldn't be performed). However, there is a clause that says no religious institution can be sued for refusing to perform a ceremony for a homosexual couple.

And a more perfect arrangement I don't think you can find.

Agreed. Its perfect. But i dont understand. If a marriage is the blessing of a divinity... then denying the priests the right to give that blessing is totally restricting their faith? How isnt that totally against the constitution? To say a priest that he CANNOT invoke a diety for ANY reason that religious sect wishes to. Why is this illegal at all? It seems blatantly to be restricting religious freedom. And why do certain religions get theirs to be called "marriages" and some do not? Surely we should encompass it all so its all the same for everyone and the religions get the most choice in what they call marriage rather than the state. The state should hand out a marriage licence to any two people who are going to live their lives together and leave the religious part ENTIRELY down to the churches who do so. The marriage title can be handed out by anyone who wants to.

Your opinion and solution is ideal btw. No argument with you. You just know a lot and im curious.

Ron Paul seems to have a great deal of integrity. As far as his actual policy positions, good riddance.

BiscuitTrouser:

Bentusi16:

The only thing a 'marriage' has that a 'civil marriage' does not have is the invoking/blessing of a deity or religion.

The thing is, we also need to put in a protection that says that explicitly. Maryland, my state, has recently allowed same-sex marriages to be performed here (until now they were recognized but couldn't be performed). However, there is a clause that says no religious institution can be sued for refusing to perform a ceremony for a homosexual couple.

And a more perfect arrangement I don't think you can find.

Agreed. Its perfect. But i dont understand. If a marriage is the blessing of a divinity... then denying the priests the right to give that blessing is totally restricting their faith? How isnt that totally against the constitution? To say a priest that he CANNOT invoke a diety for ANY reason that religious sect wishes to. Why is this illegal at all? It seems blatantly to be restricting religious freedom. And why do certain religions get theirs to be called "marriages" and some do not? Surely we should encompass it all so its all the same for everyone and the religions get the most choice in what they call marriage rather than the state. The state should hand out a marriage licence to any two people who are going to live their lives together and leave the religious part ENTIRELY down to the churches who do so. The marriage title can be handed out by anyone who wants to.

Your opinion and solution is ideal btw. No argument with you. You just know a lot and im curious.

I'm a little confused on what you mean.

The priest has the right to deny invoking their deity/religions blessings for any couple they so choose, at least as far as civil law goes; the actual laws in the religion may forbid this practice.

And again, the term 'marriage' is a purely religious one. The nature of marriage varies by religion and era, and the nature of civil marriages tend to vary by the civil authority and the era, and yes, have often been influenced by popular opinion and popular religion. Nearly every religion, and many sub-sects of various religions, have their own definition of what marriage is. Civil marriages are about taxation, not about love, at least in a traditional sense.

Many priest obtain the right to perform civil marriages largely because many people get married in a religious place; it's just convenient to have the priest also hand out the license. The united states of America in no way recognizes the divine authority of any priest to marry two people or more of any gender, race, religion, whatever; they still have to be licensed in order to marry two people under the law, and that ceremony takes place in the back room, not in the church/whatever proper.

And here's a fun marriage related fact: The catholic church originally had no qualms about allowing priest to marry, but put a mass ban in effect because priest were leaving church property to their inheritors rather then keeping it as church property.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked