This is perhaps the issue Dr. Paul is most maligned for. Usually out of ignorance, though sometimes with malicious intent, many detractors accuse Dr. Ron Paul of supporting homosexual marriage. His own words show that he does not - though he does support freedom and limiting federal gov't to only those areas assigned to it by the constitution (and marriage is not one of them).
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/13/ron-paul-in-his-own-words-on-the-irs-tsa-marriage-abortion/
RON PAUL on GAY MARRIAGE: “Personally, I totally reject it. The whole idea of marriage should be between a man and a woman."
BTW, He gave that interview minutes after posing for the photo with me in Iowa. Additionally, from his latest book, "Liberty Defined", p. 185:
"I personally identify with the dictionary definition of marriage: 'The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live together as husband and wife by legal commitments or religious ceremony.'"
This is balanced by freedom:
"Why not tolerate everybody's definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? ... With a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem could be easily avoided. The best approach is to make marriage a private matter."
In fact, if we get gov't out of marriage altogether (like it used to be), that removes the ability of the lavender lobby to use the funds and force of gov't to propagate their sodomite agenda. Getting gov't out of marriage would totally disarm the homosexual lobby. The rest of us might lose some tax credits, but those clearly come with strings attached that we'd be better off without.
Additionally, on the issue of homosexual rights:
Rep. Paul introduced the Family Protection Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
It states explicitly, "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."
Rep. Paul also voted for an amendment to prohibit federal funding from going towards foster care children adopted by unmarried same sex or heterosexual couples. The amendment specifies that no federal money will support “the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.”
Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/
*
Please elaborate more on how government at one time was not involved in the marriage issue. This is an intriguing position.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what can be said about gov't NOT being involved. We used to have church covenant marriages. A few ministers, like Matt Trewhella, still offer them.
ReplyDeleteThe gov't offered marriage tax breaks as a carrot-stick to con us into accepting gov't control of marriage.
Anytime the gov't offers us some of OUR money back, you can guarantee they have ulterior motives, and this was no exception.
We'd be better off to give up the tax break and get gov't out of marriage altogether.
Marriage isn't a covenant with the gov't anyway. It's a covenant with your spouse and with God.
The queers can call their perverted unions whatever they want, so long as the rest of us don't have to recognize them or fund them. Their "marriages" won't be legitimate before God.