Ron Paul is doing it again.

[Dezzimal]

Where was this sort of charity and activism 4 years ago when we really needed it.

[pohibaba]

Where was this sort of charity and activism 4 years ago when we really needed it.

Maybe there wasn't a candidate worth getting behind until now?

[Killerme]

States' rights and sodomy laws

Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

No gay sex (or BJs)!

[evilbau]

States' rights and sodomy laws

Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

No gay sex (or BJs)!

more importantly he believes there is no constitutional right to privacy

[Eaglestrike]

States' rights and sodomy laws

Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

No gay sex (or BJs)!

more importantly he believes there is no constitutional right to privacy

He believes in no FEDERAL gay sex/bjs/right to privacy. He believes that each STATE CAN CHOOSE THESE THINGS. This is what the founding fathers had planned out from the beginning, because each state at the time of the formation of the US had some widely different preferences. The concept was to join together to keep everyone in line, but for each state to still retain its individuality. That individuality is mostly loss, there's little difference between states because everything is federal.

To make that more simple: Ron Paul will vote for/against gays in any form of federal amendment, but he won't mind if a state chooses to allow something in regards to them.

At least that's what someone following the Constitution would think, since that's what it basically states is allowed. The political power of this country should not be in the federal government, it should be in each states' government.

[Turambar]

more importantly he believes there is no constitutional right to privacy

Seems perfectly reasonable, considering that there's not.

[Beckwin]

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp.

It's not that it's a difficult concept to grasp, it's just that it's stupid, impractical, and irresponsible to vote based on the notion that the Federal gov't shouldn't interfere with anything. If he wants to vote for measures that would formally limit federal intervention, funding, taxation, etc. (as stupid as all of those are) then fine, but otherwise I'm gonna call his voting record a history of hate-mongering and ultra-con ignorance.

Also, states are stupid. Your state is stupid. My state is stupid. States rights and the Electoral College are archaic. Pushing for greater states rights is just asking for segregation and regionalism in all the bad ways. Do you understand what states like Texas, Arizona, Alabama, etc are still capable of? Jesus Christ. States should act as semi-autonomous limbs of the federal government in order to better serve the people within them. There's really no state issues of actual concern to the people other than economic ones, for the most part. And there really shouldn't be any difference state-to-state on civil rights and social issues- that's simply demeaning to equality.

[guartz]

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

Even when the laws are total bullshit and don't reflect the view of the people who elect their own leaders.

Way to think for yourself there, Ace.

But you gotta admit, Correction. It's a lot easier for citizens to overturn local laws then national laws. Provided there is a sufficient amount of community backing.

[Correction]

But you gotta admit, Correction. It's a lot easier for citizens to overturn local laws then national laws. Provided there is a sufficient amount of community backing.

It's these very local laws that deny people hospital visitation rights, adoptions and tax breaks to couples...because they're gay. And the notion that such laws are easier to change than federal legislation is an illusion.

[guartz]

Too right, too right. It doesn't seem fair. But it's a far step from earlier days of lynchings, and in time it will improve. As it did and still does with blacks and women. Where is the Martin Luther King of the gays? eh? It's funny though, Correction. I never took you for the guy who'd march in the gay pride parades.

[pohibaba]

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp.

It's not that it's a difficult concept to grasp, it's just that it's stupid, impractical, and irresponsible to vote based on the notion that the Federal gov't shouldn't interfere with anything. If he wants to vote for measures that would formally limit federal intervention, funding, taxation, etc. (as stupid as all of those are) then fine, but otherwise I'm gonna call his voting record a history of hate-mongering and ultra-con ignorance.

Also, states are stupid. Your state is stupid. My state is stupid. States rights and the Electoral College are archaic. Pushing for greater states rights is just asking for segregation and regionalism in all the bad ways. Do you understand what states like Texas, Arizona, Alabama, etc are still capable of? Jesus Christ. States should act as semi-autonomous limbs of the federal government in order to better serve the people within them. There's really no state issues of actual concern to the people other than economic ones, for the most part. And there really shouldn't be any difference state-to-state on civil rights and social issues- that's simply demeaning to equality.

So, you'd rather a Congressman completely disregard the Constitution because it simply gets in the way?

[Beckwin]

Your conspiracy theory "disregard the constitution" crap is getting old.

Amendment XVI

(Ratified February 3, 1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Yes, they can tax us. (but oh it wasn't really ratified )

Amendment XIV

(Ratified July 9, 1868)

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

(oh wait was this amendment not really ratified either? :bagel: )
Yes, it is constitutional to tell states "no" regarding bans on gay marriage.

And yes, I'm more than willing to formally change the Constitution for the right reasons. Not allowing states to discriminate against homosexuals is one of those reasons. This whole Libertarian worship of the Constitution thing is ridiculous; I can only compare it to Biblical literalism. The document is designed to change and was written intentionally vague in many regards, so I'll be damned if I'm gonna accept a deepthroating pseudo-literalist reading of a 220 year old document as a legitimate political platform.

[evilbau]

more importantly he believes there is no constitutional right to privacy

Seems perfectly reasonable, considering that there's not.

Ah you wacky strict constructionists! As much i'd love to go 12 rounds on this, I've done it 2 or 3 times before already. The right to privacy is an unenumerated right; it is obvious it lives in the third, fourth, fifth, and to some extent the first and fourteenth amendments. Oh and the courts think this way too.

Why don't you post your full name, address and social security number (and maybe your web browsing history)? Oh thats right, you don't have to. Good thing we have laws that have upheld our civil liberties with the changing times. (THE INTERNET IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!one)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Your conspiracy theory "disregard the constitution" crap is getting old.

Amendment XVI

(Ratified February 3, 1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Yes, they can tax us. (but oh it wasn't really ratified )

[quote:10k2fkv2]Amendment XIV

(Ratified July 9, 1868)

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

(oh wait was this amendment not really ratified either? :bagel: )
Yes, it is constitutional to tell states "no" regarding bans on gay marriage.

And yes, I'm more than willing to formally change the Constitution for the right reasons. Not allowing states to discriminate against homosexuals is one of those reasons. This whole Libertarian worship of the Constitution thing is ridiculous; I can only compare it to Biblical literalism. The document is designed to change and was written intentionally vague in many regards, so I'll be damned if I'm gonna accept a deepthroating pseudo-literalist reading of a 220 year old document as a legitimate political platform.[/quote:10k2fkv2]

The first amendment you listed didn't give congress the power to tax us, it gives congress the power to tax incomes.

In the next amendment I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property. The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Edit: Why do you dislike the constitution so much? What do you think has made us such a great nation today?

[Yangsing]

This Ron Paul fad is getting out of hand.

[archibaldcrane]

The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Sure, they aren't "violating their liberty" to the letter, but other couples that aren't same-sex have additional rights under the law that same-sex couples don't have. Some would argue that this is the same thing.

[evilbau]

In the next amendment I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property. The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Edit: Why do you dislike the constitution so much? What do you think has made us such a great nation today?

what are you talking about lol "I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property." How did you even get that from the fourteenth amendment? It is not about keeping homosexuals from 'being together.' It is giving them the rights that every other American gets.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

In the next amendment I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property. The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Edit: Why do you dislike the constitution so much? What do you think has made us such a great nation today?

what are you talking about lol "I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property." How did you even get that from the fourteenth amendment? It is not about keeping homosexuals from 'being together.' It is giving them the rights that every other American gets.

He bolded life, liberty, and property, so I assumed he did not mean the states were violating gays right to life and property.

Also, who has the right to declare someone to be married? The states right? If I want to be a Marine, I have to meet certain criteria, if I don't meet that criteria and am not declared a Marine, are my rights being violated?

[evilbau]

In the next amendment I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property. The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Edit: Why do you dislike the constitution so much? What do you think has made us such a great nation today?

what are you talking about lol "I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property." How did you even get that from the fourteenth amendment? It is not about keeping homosexuals from 'being together.' It is giving them the rights that every other American gets.

He bolded life, liberty, and property, so I assumed he did not mean the states were violating gays right to life and property.

Also, who has the right to declare someone to be married? The states right? If I want to be a Marine, I have to meet certain criteria, if I don't meet that criteria and am not declared a Marine, are my rights being violated?

no, because that is a profession. Your rights aren't violated for being turned down for a job you aren't qualified for. Yes, saying a gay couple is married is pushing it a bit, but who is to say the government gets to decide a marriage is a man and a woman in the first place? Both sides have valid points on this issue but I'm a liberal so i'm not down with excluding people based on sexual orientation.

To me it makes common sense that your partner, regardless of sex/orientation deserves the rights of a married person (survivor benefits, rights to make medical decisions in emergencies, pooling resources/filing jointly, etc.)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

In the next amendment I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property. The states are not keeping gays from being together, therefor they are not violating their liberty, I don't think, and if the states are not violating their liberty, congress has nothing to enforce.

Edit: Why do you dislike the constitution so much? What do you think has made us such a great nation today?

what are you talking about lol "I assume your saying the states are violating gays liberty because the states aren't killing gays or taking their property." How did you even get that from the fourteenth amendment? It is not about keeping homosexuals from 'being together.' It is giving them the rights that every other American gets.

He bolded life, liberty, and property, so I assumed he did not mean the states were violating gays right to life and property.

Also, who has the right to declare someone to be married? The states right? If I want to be a Marine, I have to meet certain criteria, if I don't meet that criteria and am not declared a Marine, are my rights being violated?

no, because that is a profession. Your rights aren't violated for being turned down for a job you aren't qualified for. Yes, saying a gay couple is married is pushing it a bit, but who is to say the government gets to decide a marriage is a man and a woman in the first place? Both sides have valid points on this issue but I'm a liberal so i'm not down with excluding people based on sexual orientation.

To me it makes common sense that your partner, regardless of sex/orientation deserves the rights of a married person (survivor benefits, rights to make medical decisions in emergencies, pooling resources/filing jointly, etc.)

Evidently the government has the power to declare someone married. Why should the government be forced to declare someone married that it doesn't want to? I think they should get the same benefits etc, but by definition a marriage is between a man and a women. Call it a union or something and give them the same rights.