takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 24, 2008 11:46:59 GMT -5
Im sorry, but a state that writes itself checks for new money anytime it needs it does NOT inspire confidence. The value and stability of the dollar over the past 40 odd years would seem to indicate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 24, 2008 15:11:09 GMT -5
Again, personal views are not political views. Ron Paul, as you said, is christian, but is not one to outlaw gay marriage. He doesn't see marriage as a governmental issue. All marriage should be religious... cause it is. Everyone says it's a "holy union", right? So how is that a legal issue? He IS, hwoever, pro civil unions. For everyone. Including gays. You sure? Ron supports the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.Yes, he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage, but he cosponsored the "Marriage Protection Act," which would bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. Considering his opinions, seems kind of like a roundabout way of supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, doesn't it? Ron says "The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution." and "Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. The Marriage Protection Act, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, will protect the people of Texas from having marriage defined by federal judges rather than the Texas legislature." Sounds to me like he does consider marriage a governmental issue (albeit one at the State level), and not just a matter handled by the church. Thing is, despite Ron's claims that he's a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional. No assumptions here. Straight from the ass's horse's mouth. Read it for yourself. And that's him working within the system. Read a bit more, and see that he tried to get marriage, as an institution, separated from the government entirely.
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 24, 2008 15:33:10 GMT -5
So it's ok for a state to oppress parts of its population, but not for the Federal Government to do so? Sorry, but you are positing a mystical seperation between the states and the federal system which does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 24, 2008 15:44:28 GMT -5
So it's ok for a state to oppress parts of its population, but not for the Federal Government to do so? Sorry, but you are positing a mystical seperation between the states and the federal system which does not exist. ' And you're missing the point that he doesnt think its a government issue, state or federal. But, if it's going to be an issue, he's worried about it's definition being changed. I disagree with him only on that last part.
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 24, 2008 17:04:33 GMT -5
But that is an immensly important distinction. It treats the dictionary as an immutable artifact which should somehow guide legal interpretations. The definition cannot be changed, in essence, because the term 'marriage' was never defined in the first place. Not within a legal context.
|
|