Ron Paul has found himself under attack for refusing to sign a hate group’s bigoted pledge.
Republican lawmakers typically bend over backward to court anti-gay activists, particularly the National Organization for Marriage, which for the last four years has led the right-wing’s assault on nuptial equality.
To that end, most of the top tier GOP presidential candidates — Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — have signed a NOM pledge vowing opposition to same-sex marriage and support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Ron Paul, however, has not, and RawStory reports NOM is now targeting the libertarian Congressman.
“Many of Ron Paul’s supporters in Iowa believe that he is on their side when it comes to preserving traditional marriage, but he isn’t,” NOM president Brian Brown said this weekend. “While Paul says he personally believes in traditional marriage, he has refused to sign our pledge and, worse, has said that marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage. This is a dangerous position with profound consequences for society.”
The truth of the matter, though, is that Ron Paul does mostly stand with Brown and company: he has said repeatedly he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and also supports DOMA.
“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Paul said last March. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.” The only area where Paul and NOM diverge is the superfluous Federal Marriage Amendment.
That proposed legislation, championed by the nation’s most extreme conservatives, would amend the constitution to officially prohibit gay marriage from coast to coast, a long, arduous process that would encode discrimination into our nation’s founding document. But Paul doesn’t oppose the amendment for its hideous bigotry, rather for the fact that it impedes state rights, the cornerstone of his — and the Tea Party’s — political philosophy.
What we have in this feud is a fine example of how the GOP’s currently being torn between social conservatives who prefer archaic, divisive politics, and the more Libertarian who think the government has no place in the bedroom. In the end, though, they’re not truly that different, because neither side appears interested in fulfilling the American dream: ensuring every man and woman are treated equal. Basically it comes down to this: Paul’s simply not a big enough bigot to get on NOM’s good side. But what would you expect from a group whose co-founder once claimed, “[Gay people] want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles?”*
[*Note: An earlier version of this piece said the Southern Poverty Law Center had officially deemed NOM a hate group. That's incorrect. NOM is simply, by the SPLC's standards, just an anti-gay group, but if you ask me, there's a thin line between NOM's rhetoric and what we hear from another anti-gay, and officially "hate," group, Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center.]
December 19, 2011 at 10:03 am, Good Karme said:
the souther poverty law center also calls ron paul supporters “terrorists” so lets not go by what that hate group the southern poverty law center thinks
December 19, 2011 at 10:25 am, Info said:
I agree with Ron Paul, and see the other canditates panddering to a special intrest group as more of the same old problem.
December 19, 2011 at 10:27 am, Shamallamadaka said:
Mister Belonsky, I fear that you must be looking at this situation through a rather statist lens, for the profundity of the difference between libertarianism and social conservatism to be lost upon you. Libertarianism acknowledges that the way to protect human equality is to allow all people to male their own decisions regarding things like marriage, rather than to ignore one definition of marriage in order to give a meaningless ‘seal of approval’ to the other. It is for this reason that Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he opposes all government definition of marriage, period. He acknowledges that states have a right to set their own marriage laws without interference from the federal government, but has made it clear that he would cast his vote against any legislation that attempted to set a legal definition of marriage, regardless of whether it included homosexual unions or not. This is true equality. Using the government to force any definition of marriage upon the people is an abuse of power that restricts human freedom and refuses to treat opposing views with equality, and if you truly believe that this is an appropriate role for government, then it is not the libertarians who ultimately resemble the social conservatives. It is you.
December 19, 2011 at 10:33 am, Jshamtin said:
Ron Paul is right. Government should stay out of what has traditionally been a religious institution.
December 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm, Anonymous said:
Please remind him to include women and minorities lives that the government should stay out of,or it is not freedom for all. Which means he is no different than the Republicans in these areas.
December 19, 2011 at 3:49 pm, Anonymous said:
I think you misunderstand his position substantially. I ask which republican candidate has a record you prefer?
You call him discriminatory and provide no real evidence or alternative. Its just inflammatory rhetoric.
December 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm, Anonymous said:
NONE!
December 19, 2011 at 5:52 pm, Anonymous said:
Then you really have no point. Go vote for obama and quit griping. You have no point to your argument. There is no point in dogging paul because you want obama to win.
December 19, 2011 at 6:02 pm, Anonymous said:
I do not trust any of them. In a country with 300 million humans no one is ever going to all agree. it is only going to get worse and you will find with any politician he will never be able to please even his best supporters. Just like what happened with obama and all the others before him.
December 20, 2011 at 3:55 am, Anonymous said:
Ahhh… another lost soul trapped in political limbo by the false ‘Left/Right Paradigm’ confusion. They want you to think ‘they are all alike’ so you just give up and learn to love the lash like a good serf should! You don’t need to ‘trust’ any of them- just make an informed decision based on facts and the record as to who is closest to supporting your better interests. And don’t let anyone TELL you who is ‘better’- make up your OWN mind! And The Truth Shall Set You Free!
December 19, 2011 at 3:49 pm, Anonymous said:
I think you misunderstand his position substantially. I ask which republican candidate has a record you prefer?
You call him discriminatory and provide no real evidence or alternative. Its just inflammatory rhetoric.
December 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm, Portlandpatisserie said:
marriage in the christian orthodox was only a “religious institution” when the catholic church changed their stance from “all sex is evil regardless” to “marital sex can be tolerated as long as we control what defines marriage” in (i believe) the 13th/14th century when they realized they couldnt stop the majority of people from having sex
December 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm, Portlandpatisserie said:
marriage in the christian orthodox was only a “religious institution” when the catholic church changed their stance from “all sex is evil regardless” to “marital sex can be tolerated as long as we control what defines marriage” in (i believe) the 13th/14th century when they realized they couldnt stop the majority of people from having sex
December 20, 2011 at 8:54 am, Robbert Bricker said:
marriage: the secular or religious uniting of two consenting adults (no animals, no children, no inanimate objects)
holy matrimony: the religious rite uniting a a couple (consent is not necessary)
the usa is NOT a theocracy and therefore religion has no bearing on secular law.
December 20, 2011 at 10:15 am, Jesse L-a said:
You’re deliberately trying to word those definitions for it to be suitable both heterosexually and homosexually, but all you’re really doing is spreading misinformation.
“The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” is what every dictionary has said since they started printing.
While I am against gay marriage, I am also against the prohibition of gay marriage.
If I owned a church, due to my personal beliefs I would not grant a homosexual couple a marriage certificate.
However, that doesn’t mean I have the right to impose my will upon another church or another group.
If another group chooses to endorse homosexuality and provide them with a marriage certificate that’s their right to do so, but it is also a Freedom of Choice to deny a marriage certificate.
Prohibiting an act by choice, and prohibiting the refusal of an act by choice are both direct violations of freedom of choice in the charter of human rights.
Therefore there should be no federal law mandating it either way, and you leave it church-to-church to decide what is best for their community.
December 20, 2011 at 10:15 am, Jesse L-a said:
You’re deliberately trying to word those definitions for it to be suitable both heterosexually and homosexually, but all you’re really doing is spreading misinformation.
“The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” is what every dictionary has said since they started printing.
While I am against gay marriage, I am also against the prohibition of gay marriage.
If I owned a church, due to my personal beliefs I would not grant a homosexual couple a marriage certificate.
However, that doesn’t mean I have the right to impose my will upon another church or another group.
If another group chooses to endorse homosexuality and provide them with a marriage certificate that’s their right to do so, but it is also a Freedom of Choice to deny a marriage certificate.
Prohibiting an act by choice, and prohibiting the refusal of an act by choice are both direct violations of freedom of choice in the charter of human rights.
Therefore there should be no federal law mandating it either way, and you leave it church-to-church to decide what is best for their community.
December 20, 2011 at 10:15 am, Jesse L-a said:
You’re deliberately trying to word those definitions for it to be suitable both heterosexually and homosexually, but all you’re really doing is spreading misinformation.
“The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” is what every dictionary has said since they started printing.
While I am against gay marriage, I am also against the prohibition of gay marriage.
If I owned a church, due to my personal beliefs I would not grant a homosexual couple a marriage certificate.
However, that doesn’t mean I have the right to impose my will upon another church or another group.
If another group chooses to endorse homosexuality and provide them with a marriage certificate that’s their right to do so, but it is also a Freedom of Choice to deny a marriage certificate.
Prohibiting an act by choice, and prohibiting the refusal of an act by choice are both direct violations of freedom of choice in the charter of human rights.
Therefore there should be no federal law mandating it either way, and you leave it church-to-church to decide what is best for their community.
December 19, 2011 at 10:55 am, Anonymous said:
Ron Paul would have my vote on refusing to sign pledges alone.
December 19, 2011 at 11:08 am, B said:
ROFL! Dangerous implications for America. Because the voluntary associations between two consenting adults is a real threat to America. The government has no business telling me who I may or may not associate with!
December 19, 2011 at 11:28 am, Josh said:
“because neither side appears interested in fulfilling the American dream: ensuring every man and woman are treated equal.”
How about equality for people who choose not to get married at all? Is it only equality if you ensure there is still at least one other group you can treat unfairly?
December 19, 2011 at 11:36 am, Ben Doverheeritcomes said:
Attention everybody I have big news. Mitt and Newt have already lost.
They will never become President. I think Ron Paul will win the
nomination. In the event that he doesn’t, those two will need the votes
of Ron Paul supporters in order to beat obama. We will not give them
those votes! We will follow Ron out the door and support him as a third
party candidate. We will write him in if we have to. We will split the
republican vote. The republicans have two choices. They can go along
with us and support Ron Paul or they can hand obama a second term. In
our view, obama, mitt, and newt may as well be the same guy. They’re all
turds, just with a different smell. We will not vote for the lesser of
two evils. It’s their turn to do that. We will stand on principle until
the end. In any case, it’s over for newt and mitt. They will never be
president. Stick a fork in them. They’re done!
Ron has the votes of republicans, independents, libertarians, and blue
republicans. newt and mitt have only republican votes to count on. The
race has just narrowed to Paul vs obama. Time for you to choose!
December 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm, Portlandpatisserie said:
Ron Paul can only come up against obama if he wins the republican nomination. which i hope he does
December 19, 2011 at 11:44 am, Billy Sanders said:
How dare you call Ron Paul a biggot because he doesn’t wave a rainbow flag and accept homosexuality. Fighting for equality for those people whose lifestyle he finds abhorrent isn’t good enough for you? When is the last time a ‘liberal’ stood up for my right to bear arms? Such a hypocritical article. Here’s a guy who believes in a Christian value system yet he’s willing to stand-up for the rights of gays to privacy and freedom from government intrusion but, that’s just not good enough… I guess he should have made out with Bruno to appease you idiots. Grow up, Ron Paul is the most honest, logical, principled man I’ve ever known of in American government… if he’s not good enough we may as well start world war 3 and start killing each other because no one better than him will come along and affect any REAL hope or change.
December 19, 2011 at 11:44 am, Billy Sanders said:
How dare you call Ron Paul a biggot because he doesn’t wave a rainbow flag and accept homosexuality. Fighting for equality for those people whose lifestyle he finds abhorrent isn’t good enough for you? When is the last time a ‘liberal’ stood up for my right to bear arms? Such a hypocritical article. Here’s a guy who believes in a Christian value system yet he’s willing to stand-up for the rights of gays to privacy and freedom from government intrusion but, that’s just not good enough… I guess he should have made out with Bruno to appease you idiots. Grow up, Ron Paul is the most honest, logical, principled man I’ve ever known of in American government… if he’s not good enough we may as well start world war 3 and start killing each other because no one better than him will come along and affect any REAL hope or change.
December 19, 2011 at 3:47 pm, Sisboombahr said:
I don’t think the author is calling Ron Paul a bigot – he’s using sarcasm to illustrate the bigotry of the NOM group. I read this article as a backhanded compliment to Paul, who rises above ridiculous pledges from groups that practice the politics of exclusion and polarization.
President Paul 2012!
December 20, 2011 at 1:08 am, Bill said:
I’m a liberal and I’ll stand up for your right to bear arms even though you’re an insufferable douche.
December 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm, Asfd said:
As Americans we should all stand up for the rights of the insufferable douches.
December 20, 2011 at 1:30 am, Elan said:
I’m a liberal who stands up for the right to bear arms. I may not like guns or own any, but it’s in the bill of rights. I think that messing with any amendment sets a bad precedent. If they can take away the second, they can take away the first just as easily.
December 19, 2011 at 11:44 am, Billy Sanders said:
How dare you call Ron Paul a biggot because he doesn’t wave a rainbow flag and accept homosexuality. Fighting for equality for those people whose lifestyle he finds abhorrent isn’t good enough for you? When is the last time a ‘liberal’ stood up for my right to bear arms? Such a hypocritical article. Here’s a guy who believes in a Christian value system yet he’s willing to stand-up for the rights of gays to privacy and freedom from government intrusion but, that’s just not good enough… I guess he should have made out with Bruno to appease you idiots. Grow up, Ron Paul is the most honest, logical, principled man I’ve ever known of in American government… if he’s not good enough we may as well start world war 3 and start killing each other because no one better than him will come along and affect any REAL hope or change.
December 19, 2011 at 11:53 am, Bud said:
Way to say it Billy Sanders!!!
Quote: How dare you call Ron Paul a biggot because he doesn’t wave a rainbow flag and accept homosexuality. Fighting for equality for those people whose lifestyle he finds abhorrent isn’t good enough for you? When is the last time a ‘liberal’ stood up for my right to bear arms?
December 19, 2011 at 11:57 am, pravin varma said:
does equal rights for homosexual marriages mean forcing unaccepting heterosexuals to accept it?.how about nobody telling the other group what to accept.if the heteros dont accept homos,so what,the homos can ignore em.marriage is a private affair.neither i nor you should tell anyone whom to marry .end of story.ron paul is honest and equally accepting of both unions,because he doesnt believe in poking his nose where it doesnt belong.
it is a honorable stand.
December 20, 2011 at 8:57 am, Robbert Bricker said:
i agree… i do not think any glbt people are looking for acceptance, rather, just equality. there seems to be this thread of propaganda coming from the right trying to convince the nation that somehow, marriage equality means everyone must be in a same-sex marriage. how they come to this insane conclusion is beyond me.
December 19, 2011 at 12:42 pm, JB said:
“because neither side appears interested in fulfilling the American dream: ensuring every man and woman are treated equal.”
You forgot to add “under the law”. The “American dream” is mutable. The “American concept” is liberty. And that is not mutable.
December 19, 2011 at 12:42 pm, JB said:
“because neither side appears interested in fulfilling the American dream: ensuring every man and woman are treated equal.”
You forgot to add “under the law”. The “American dream” is mutable. The “American concept” is liberty. And that is not mutable.
December 19, 2011 at 12:43 pm, Jerry said:
Why the hell should we be worrying what gay people do as long as they are not doing it to disrupt others. Ron Paul is for freedom, this means getting the government out of our lives as much as possible.
December 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm, Cid said:
Ron Paul represents the ideal of “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” The difference between Ron Paul and NOM is, Ron Paul has a philosophical ideal to which he holds – NOM, as an organization, is homophobic. Whether Mr Paul’s avowed to ideal is bigotted, that’s for each person to decide on their own.
December 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Stop calling Ron Paul a liberatarian. He is not a true libertarian. he is a product of the tea bagger- republicans. Why because he is against minorities and women or should I say he beleives the government should regulate womens lives and that blacks and all other minorities should be allowed to be left out of certain buisinesses. and or wherev er they choose. I do not call that freedom for all in any aspect.
December 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Stop calling Ron Paul a liberatarian. He is not a true libertarian. he is a product of the tea bagger- republicans. Why because he is against minorities and women or should I say he beleives the government should regulate womens lives and that blacks and all other minorities should be allowed to be left out of certain buisinesses. and or wherev er they choose. I do not call that freedom for all in any aspect.
December 19, 2011 at 1:56 pm, Anonymous said:
Its called the boyscouts. They can already discriminate. There are lots of private clubs that do.
Strip clubs discriminate, hooters discriminates. Ron Paul is not for government sanction discrimination. You have any actually evidence to back that up? Or just more made up garbage?
December 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm, Anonymous said:
yeah HE said it and he signed those horrible anti-women bills. Basically saying it is ok to let a pregnant women die to save a fetus that will probably already die anyway. It was one of several that the conservative congress could not wait to get passed. By taking away a womans reproductive rights you are basically taking away ALL of a womans rights. Why because the uterus controls a womans life for well over 30 years and because there are drugs and surgery to prevent all of this right now this is legal- right now. Not if the conservatives have a say or Ron Paul.
He is a republican tea bagger NOT a liberatarian. he ran WITH the republican party he gave up his title to liberatarian by doing so and acting against the liberatarian views. Look it up on the net if you don’t beleive me.
To make matters worse he was a womans doctor!! TRAITOR is more like it
December 19, 2011 at 3:42 pm, Anonymous said:
You speak in very general terms and show a large misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
Ron Paul is very strongly anti-abortion. It is very hard in his mind as well as my own to understand how anyone can argue that it is okay to kill an unborn child. The argument I use is for personal responsibility–If you take the chance of having sex without the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy, then you must live with the consequences. This is no different than having to live without a hand if you try operating a table saw without paying attention. As far as complications in birth that are damaging to the mother’s health; that very section of Wikipedia that you linked to states clearly, that Ron Paul believes those situations should be considered by the doctor and regulated by the state.
All of that aside, your argument lacks a clear point and any defending details. I’m really not sure how to rebut your argument because I’m not sure what it is.
Your original post about private businesses being allowed to discriminate is not entirely false, however you fail to take into account that businesses simply wouldn’t do that because it just doesn’t make sense.
First, if a business was to decide that they would not sell their product or service to a certain group of individuals, they are cutting the size of their market and losing money. They would also risk boycott from civil liberties activist groups, further cutting their market size.
Second, if a business was further involved in questionable hiring practices, it wouldn’t be too difficult (especially with the evolution of the internet) for this to become publicly known and for the people to retaliate by boycotting that business.
Third, your argument essentially comes down to taking the right of the business owner to select his/her employees. Taken to the extreme this would result in business owners being forced to hire under-qualified workers so that those who didn’t take their education seriously aren’t discriminated against.
I urge you to look more closely into the issues rather than just listening to the rhetoric of the talking heads on TV.
December 19, 2011 at 5:43 pm, Anonymous said:
He has no right to inflict his beleifs on others is that clear enough? That is what free means to me. i do not want any social forcing of any kind where the government is involved. That is like telling me I must beleive in a certain releigion when I will never. It is FORCE and restricts a person’s rights. I was here first not an embryo. If you don’t agree fine but I do and it is my life. These people trying to give a zygote personhood rights are playing with fire and that is what Paul and others of the control type is trying to do.
As far as the busiinesses concerned more than likely the whole south will be restricting blacks and other minorities. What do you intend to do when that happens? I do not want to find out.
In this world we live with unfair people of all kinds the government was brought in to help defend the rights of the defenseless and the different from white male which unfortunately are not likely to ever change. Therefore in order to survive we need protections. I guess you would prefer women and blacks just died?
December 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm, Anonymous said:
Where is he inflicting his beliefs on others? You provide no example. You think all republicans are monsters.
Eric holder gets U.S. border guards killed by giving guns to drug cartels and you have the guts to come on here and call paul a racist? Really. You partisan you. First of all he is running for president and not governor. He believes in states rights. So he will not mess with current laws for the most part.
I think you don’t know anything about ron paul.
December 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm, Anonymous said:
Yes i do think republicans are monsters they keep proving it. I also think dems are whimps and cannot be trusted either.
i did not call Paul a racist.
December 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm, Omadog said:
You’re an illiterate moron.
December 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm, Anonymous said:
Look at yourself first
December 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm, Portlandpatisserie said:
can i laugh at the irony of calling someone “illiterate” when they have to be able to read to actually get the insult…
December 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm, Anonymous said:
he is anti-choice on state level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation
December 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm, Mark Wharton said:
He would prefer freedom, but if the people choose to vote away freedom he prefers it on the state level so people can leave without needing to apply for citizenship elsewhere
December 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm, Msoliday Fw said:
“ensuring every man and woman are treated equal” – you know that this statement is an impossibility and in no way the responsibility of our government. You are tearing down civil liberties in the name of “equality”
December 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm, Wtstra01 said:
Good for you Ron Paul.
Ron Paul 2012!
December 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm, Colorado Mom said:
Let’s base our vote for the president on what his/her stance is on marriage. Brilliant!!! That was sarcasm
Too many more important issues for me. The government needs to stay out of people’s bedrooms and focus on pulling this country out of a sinking hole!
Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm, Colorado Mom said:
Let’s base our vote for the president on what his/her stance is on marriage. Brilliant!!! That was sarcasm
Too many more important issues for me. The government needs to stay out of people’s bedrooms and focus on pulling this country out of a sinking hole!
Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 19, 2011 at 3:17 pm, Anonymous said:
Um… What?
“marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage. This is a dangerous position with profound consequences for society”
That conclusion sounds well thought-out and backed by tons of supporting detail.
What a idiot.
December 19, 2011 at 3:43 pm, Daniel Palmquist said:
I am for marriage between a man and a woman and have been labeled a bigot myself on many occasions even going to pride parades and preaching against the lifestyle – I support Ron Paul because the government should not be in control over marriage at all. Individuals decide and that is true freedom that I can stand for. People can do what they want and this is how it is suppose to be. What Ron Paul stands for resonates truth with most people and I am convinced He is going to win. Amen.
December 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm, Portlandpatisserie said:
did u mean that u go to pride parades and preach against homosexuality there? if so thats really annoying. does that mean i can go to church every sunday and interrupt the preacher by lecturing that christianity is abhorrent and that queer is the way to go???
December 19, 2011 at 11:16 pm, Nathan said:
you are a bigot-marriage in america is secular-if you look at gays as less than straights or less deserving of rights than straights you are a backwards, bigoted religiously brainwashed ignorant hateful bigot-clear?
December 20, 2011 at 1:17 am, Bill said:
You are not a libertarian, why on earth would you go to a pride parade and try to tell people how to live their lives? The arrogance there is astounding, good thing you’re only harming your own cause by doing something so idotic.
December 20, 2011 at 9:03 am, Robbert Bricker said:
i fully support your right to be a bigot (if you are) and support your freedom to hate glbt people, loathe the way they live and disagree with marriage equality. i will fight for your right to feel that way, however, your religious views are just that- religious. the usa is NOT a theocracy and your religion has no bearing on secular law.
December 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm, ElizabethB said:
Who really cares??! People that are homosexual will live together anyway; it doesn’t offend me or effect me in any way whatsoever. If they want to file taxes as married (which is probably why politics are involved at all) why should I care? They pay taxes the same as I do!
December 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm, Ben said:
I think people are missing the point. The federal government has taken upon itself to shove all sorts of laws down everyone’s throats. And, no one – not even the states – have much of a recourse, because the federal government has continued to amass power, for years. Paul’s view is that he wants people, and states, to decide – not the federal government. His view is not whether the issue is right, or wrong. The fundamental issue is who should decide these things? People? Or Big Gov? If it is in the hands of the people, then people can work to change other people’s minds. But, if everything is decided by ”Big Gov”, then the spirit of America will be destroyed. Also, the idea that more and more laws will make America better, is actually flawed. We have more laws than ever, and everything seems to be worse. So, there has to be a change of heart, on the part of people – which is something that laws do not produce.
December 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights. Period.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Marriage Officiants & Justice of the Peace
December 20, 2011 at 3:47 am, Anonymous said:
NOM is the ‘Women’s Christian Temperance Union’ of the 21st Century (but hopefully not as politically successful!). If America learned only ONE thing from Prohibition, it is that you CAN NOT legislate morality, and the end result is not only far from the desired effect, but is more destructive than any alternative.
WHat these intolerant ‘Religionists’ fail to realize is that, if they are successful in their quest, an equally or more powerful group diametrically OPPOSED to their beliefs could ALSO use their tactics to ram THEIR beliefs down the throats of the NOM supporters!
Ron Paul’s thoughtful position is to actually protect these people from themselves, as by trying to impose their personal view of morality on society, they are destroying the very fabric of that society by undermining the basic underpinnings of individual rights and freedoms upon which this country was founded!
December 20, 2011 at 10:08 am, Jesse L-a said:
“amend the constitution to officially prohibit gay marriage from coast to coast”
Case and point why Ron Paul is obviously not going to sign your pledge. It’s yet another group trying to force their selfish opinions on everyone else.
There’s even pro-gay groups going around now trying to get pledges that would make the amendment that ONLY homosexuality is considered marriage, it’s ridiculous.
All of this forcing our will onto other people is ridiculous.
Prohibiting freedom of choice in any form would be atrocious, but it’s being done already.
There’s plenty of places forcing churches to marry homosexual couples by law, which is also unjust.
If a church does not want to go along with gay marriage, is that not their choice to refuse?
Likewise is another church chooses to endorse gay marriage, is that not also their choice?
This mindset that we need a one size fits all solution will always end up with one party feeling jilted, since not everyone feels the same way.
So my belief is that, while I personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman since that was the original definition of the word, we shouldn’t prohibit a church from allowing homosexual marriage if they choose to endorse this, but likewise we shouldn’t prohibit a church from refusing a homosexual couple marriage.
I’d feel the same way if there was some homosexual church out there and they refused to give me the right to marry man woman.