Article Image

IPFS News Link • Ron Paul Says...

Ron Paul Not So Much States' Rights When It Comes to Gays

• Becky Chandler
Ron Paul was in Iowa discussing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The “Defender of the Constitution” took an alarmingly unconstitutional anti-states' rights position in regard to it. Representative Paul's reasoning is not only profoundly disappointing, it should alarm anyone who cares about the constitution, regardless of their personal feelings on gay marriage and whether or not they favor its existence in their state or not. Even worse, he was touting, the Marriage Protection Act, which he cosponsored. The bill would prevent people from even going to court and questioning the constitutionality of DOMA.

5 Comments in Response to

Comment by SamFox
Entered on:

Breaking news! Homosexuality is NOT a Constitutional protected status! Neither is lust, adultery, fornication, theft,  child molesting, bestiality ...I have to take the path of most resistance on this one.  I am NOT going along to get along. Homosexuality is perverse, twisted & backward sexuality. Period. End of story. So are the other things I listed.

Ron Paul is a good man. Trying to paint him as something else in favor of immorality is not a good thing!

Just because people are involved in an activity does not mean they have some kind of right to that activity.

If homosexual 'marriage' becomes law what next? Seeking equal protection under the law, would people not be than able to marry their children, more than one spouse at a time, name it. A weird Pandora's Marriage Box would be wide open.

Just a thought...


Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Thanks for so elegantly making my point Don. 

All 50 states have an agreement to honor one another's marriage licenses.   There is no such thing as a gay marriage license.  It is the same license as a non-gay marriage license.  It is just some states have again expanded their classification of who can get married in the same way that some state's allow you to marry your first cousins and some don't, some allow you to marry at 14 years of age, some 18.

It should not be up to the federal government to stick it's nose in state's business.

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:

Yes, Ron Paul is off base here with regard to libertarian principles. But it's not as simple as Becky and Powell make it out to be.

Becky discusses the full faith and credit clause, but I'm not sure why because it is not applicable to gay marriage. Compare licensing of handgun carry with licensing of driving a car. What's the difference? In both cases, you cross a state line with a physically dangerous object and license to use it in the state from which you came. Does the full faith and credit clause apply? The answer is no for both cars and guns, the full faith and credit clause does not apply in either case, that it's just common practice for states to reciprocate in honoring driver's licenses, but not so for gun carry licenses. So in what situations does the full faith and credit clause apply, and what are the guidelines for deciding on its being applicable or not? The answer is that very few inter-state issues are governed by the full faith and credit clause. For example, when Congress enacted the law outlawing states from ignoring inter-racial marriage entered into other states, it was done under the equal protection clause, not under the full faith and credit clause. My point is that the full faith and credit clause is most likely not a rationale for a court to force a state to recognize gay marriages created in other states.

Comment by David Alpha
Entered on:
Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you Becky for your post. You and Powell are both right. I found myself amused when I had to confront another Freedom's Phoenix poster just the other day on the proper role of government regarding private civil contracts; it's disappointing to see my "virtual mentor" Dr. Paul not live up to his own standard. As Ernie says, "Freedom's the answer. What's the question?"

David Alpha.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

You are so right Becky.  And Paul should be ashamed because the federal government has no business in the State's licensing of marriages and their agreements amongst each other regarding respect of their licenses. He knows better.