Because under the Constitution marriage is a matter decided by the state.

He would have voted for it if he was opposed to any laws legalizing gay marriage. The fact is it is a state issue not a Federal issue under the Constitution. By allowing states the right to define what marriage is he leaves the possiblity of gay marriage open for all states to consider.

Wrong again. He believes that state courts and legislatures are capable of handling these issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act

You are not good at knowing what Ron Paul believes.

Also, wait:

???

i'm not really paying attention here but Fly, that quote you just posted says exactly what twofingerted says.

federal courts cannot interfere with state decisions, in other words, RP believes states can handle these issues.

edit: referring to post 17304

Exactly. The Federal judges cannot redefine what marriage is. States, however, have the right to choose what marriage is and isn't in each state. If a state wants to marry gays they can if a state doesn't want gays to marry they don't have to let them. He simply believes THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO FEDERAL LAW BANNING OR LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE.

He believes in the rights of each indvidual state and the people therein to make up their minds for themselves.

Thank you. I would enjoy actual discourse with fly if he would ever care to engage in any.

Here's what Ron Paul told Iowans:

Another interview about this:

Also, fly do you really not understand why the state supreme court of CA cannot hear a case having to do with the U.S. Constitution? You understand why a U.S. court can't hear a trial regarding CA state law unless it is to show that the law is unconstitutional?

I know he thinks states can handle this issue. His preference is that they handle it by defending traditional marriage by defining it as a man and a woman. Which is awful? And Ron Paul is so worried that courts might find those laws unconstitutional(because they are!) he wants to game the system by removing the ability of courts to hear those cases.

Again, the Marriage Protection Act is horrific. It is a law that says:

1) Courts cannot evaluate the constitutionality of a questionably constitutional law

2) Also courts cannot evaluate the constitutionality of THIS LAW

That is a complete abandonment of the checks and balances concept! Like fundamental to our nation!

We've had judicial review for 200 years, and it's been an enormous force for good, and Ron Paul wants to end it because he's afraid courts will force states to recognize gay marriage!

Same thing, again. Read what he says not what you want to see. He will fight for a states right, i.e. their right to A STATE LAW, to ban same sex marriage. No where in there does he say he wants to ban gay marriage. Only that a state has a right to ban it.

He has a right to his own opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. He, however, does not impose this opinion on other people and allows for each state on its own and under its own laws to decide wether gay marriage is legal or illegal.

In short, personally, he is against it. From a legislative view though he is totally unbiased and thinks that each individual state and it's people have a right to decide.

He doesn't want the states to be able to ban gay marriage. He doesn't want any government, state or federal, to have any authority over marriage.

Because the whole point of having a constitution is so that states can't subvert it.

This is all one giant assumption.

Why would he allow states to decide if gay marriage should be legal, when according to you, he ZOMG LOL WAYCIST wants to insta-ban it on site. If he wanted to ban gay marriage it would be much easier to do it at the federal level and not allow all 50 states to make up their own laws on it.

He isn't subverting it. Marriage is a state power under the Constitution.

it's really not a complete abandonment of the checks and balances, you just happen to not like that congress has the power to check the court on this issue.

and it seems Ted did understand RP's view so you were wrong on that which is the only reason i got involved.

It's hard to say by what he is quoted as saying. I think most libertarians would agree with what you stated. The one thing for certain is is that he is most certainly against a federal ban on gay marriage.

Edit: Your right looking back at it he does not say he is against gay marriage only that he thinks it is between a man and a woman. He says nowhere that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Just proves to me again how little I know .

What?

Where did I say that?

Ron Paul wants states to be free to ban gay marriage without the federal government meddling around and protecting the civil rights of American citizens. There are also a bunch of other issues where he would prefer the federal government not be able to enforce constitutional amendments to protect the civil rights of American citizens. That's all. Some people might find that reprehensible.


Well, and this is just a guess, maybe he's afraid liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter.

He doesn't think a federal ban on gay marriage is the best way to prevent ***** from getting married in the long term.

Ted, do you think a court should ever overturn legislation for being unconstitutional?

Yes, often actually. Unfortunately, it almost never happens anymore.

Can you provide an example of a law that should be declared unconstitutional and why? It can be hypothetical if you want.

It is.

Where haven't you said it?



Another assumption. You could assume that he wants all states to legalize gay marriage. You aren't making arguements your just stating opinions on what you think he does and doesn't think and does and doesn't want. This is fine, but, don't state them as fact.





At least here you started out stating that you were making an assumption.

Any reasoned arguements you want to level or are we just going to play this game?

On that note, I'm going to bed.

Patriot act.

Now seriously, bed.