Ron Paul opposes Federal Marriage Amendment

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society.

- rest at www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

 

I agree with Ron Paul, I called my Congressman and Senators and asked them to vote FOR the Defense of Marriage Protection Act, but to vote AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment.

 

I agree with Ron Paul and also JGrubbs on this. The article that Ken posts gives Paul's reasoning, which is sound.

 

I also agree!

 

I have known Ron Paul since 1963 and have found him to be an informed and honorable man. By his opposition he expresses his belief in states rights and individual moral responsibilities.

 

The Constitution is to be amended to deal with crises of the times. Who today would think that the 3rd Amendment was necessary, or any of the Bill of Rights.

An amendment is necessary. Once the cup of our iniquity is full it can be repealed.

 

U.S. Constitution: Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I think that the third amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights are necessary yesterday, today and tomorrow!

Marriage was defined by God, I don't want to grant the federal government the right to redefine it. Should they also be able to define "civil unions" at the federal level?

Did the 18th Amendment stop the drinking of alcoholic drinks? This amendment was repealed by Amendment 21. The Federal Marriage Amendment, even if it had a chance of passing, will not stop homosexual marriages.

The DOMA signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 gave the states the right to ban homosexual marriages, many have done so. We don't need a constitutional amendment, we just need to enforce the law, and impeach any judge who tries to abuse their power. Homosexual marriage has never been made legal in any states, including Massachusetts, following a Constitutional republican form of government. Both the people and the legislature of Massachusetts need to stand up to the judges in their state and start impeachment hearings.

 

Amen! I was beginning to wonder if there were any Christians who saw the need to deny the federal govt the power of defining marriage for us. I have been somewhat saddened that so few seem to think very deeply on this issue and see what the real issue is.

 

What's that?

 

Right. It's so plain to anyone who wants to see. But most seem happy to follow their favorite political personalities, and never require them to act.

How long will we put up with it, electing the same people who continue to run our nation into the dirt?

 

The states already have the power to not recognise other states' marriages, although I doubt that has happened since the miscegenation laws were repealed.

 

To be nitpicky, DOMA did not do that. States already have that right, under the US Constitution.

DOMA merely recognizes a right already there.

 

Your right, DOMA recognizes the states rights. Thanks for the correction!