AmericanPapist Comments
How in the world could a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT like the marriage amendment be "nonconstitutional"???
"Ron Paul voted against the marriage amendment, but only because he thought it was non-constitutional, not because he doesn’t think marriage isn’t a union of a man and a woman."
How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? If the amendment were to be ratified by 2/3 of each house of Congress, and by majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures, and if it then legitimately became part of the constitution, wouldn't it then be constitutional by definition? In other words, how can part of the constitution be unconstitutional?
I didn't see John's comment until I had already posted mine. It looks like I wasn't the only one with this question. :)
I once put forth a question regarding Paul's stance on marriage because I didn't know what it was given his rigid constitutional interpretations, and I don't think I ever got a response, but this answers things.
If I had to guess, his reasoning is based on the fact that regulating marriage falls in the domain of the states. Also, many would interpret such an amendment as repealing the portion of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all without due process of the law.
Isn't the reasoning for Paul's stance a bit disingenuous? "Here's what I personally believe, but..." sounds awfully familiar to me.
All of the above! Please do explain, Mr Peters, why you find this a reasonable position.
Maybe by non-constitutional he means "not an appropriate subject for inclusion in the Constitution."
I can't say I agree, but I can understand the argument.
The problem is that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution arguably requires each state to recognize marriages performed in sister states. Some argue that the best way to clear that question up with regard to marriage would be to include something in the Constitution that provides a universal definition of marriage that would apply in every state.
But, when it comes to Ron Paul, I'm still stuck on his opposition to the Civil War . . . just can't get beyond that, personally.
A few thoughts on the preceding discussion: First, regarding the question of constitutional vs. non-constitutional, certainly no one would hold that an unjust law is truly lawful. By the same token, much has passed through the House which is in direct contradiction and opposition to the "spirit" of the Constitution itself.
That spirit, if we understand our country's history, is one of emphasis upon limited government, the rights of individuals, and freedom. I don't think this question of defining marriage, for Paul, has so much to do with returning power to the states (because it is a political non-issue for him) as it does the problem of giving the federal government the power to define marriage when the natural order speaks so definitively. If the government has the power to define marriage, it has the power to redefine it and we the people are no longer safe. It could be that one day marriage between man and woman is outlawed per government sanction. But not if such power is restricted.
There is much more to this issue, and I would encourage you all to rewatch the earlier GOP debates (one of the first 2 I believe) to hear Dr. Paul's response to this very question.
As regards the comment about the Civil War, again, like many of Dr. Paul's positions, the subject of the Civil War is much more nuanced than simply "he is against it." I don't think you need to be a history major to know that the Civil War was more about the question of big government power vs. states rights and power.
Paul on the Civil War. I saw him on Meet the Press and listened carefully to what he said. He said that Lincoln should not have fought the Civil War, which I guess means President Paul would have surrendered at Fort Sumter.
He said that, instead of fighting the war, the government should have purchased the freedom of the slaves and it would have been a lot cheaper than the war. But if he had surrendered at Fort Sumter there would have been two countries on this continent, and the federal government could not have forced slave owners in the Confederacy to sell . . .
There may be more "nuances," as you put it, but I'm not prepared to take seriously a candidate who would have opposed defending the Union in 1861.
"If the government has the power to define marriage, it has the power to redefine it and we the people are no longer safe."
So what say you about states defining marriage? It's certainly within their bounds to do so. But if Vermont recognizes gay marriage and North Dakota doesn't, then we've got a big problem under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The radical Jeffersonian republicanism can only go so far. That's why Chief Justice Marshall thankfully provided a liberal interpretation of the elastic clause of the Constitution to enable the federal government to act.
Finally, I've never heard Ron Paul give thoughts on the Civil War, but I agree with all that Brassband has said on that matter.
homosexual “marriage.”
As Catholics we believe marriage is a life-long union of one man and one woman. The Church, however, does not seem opposed to allowing civil courtesies in common speech. The pope has welcomed "the Archbishop of Canturbury" without being accused of revisiting the issue of Anglican Orders. Catholic pro-life offices have asked me to write to "the Honorable X" without, I believe, making a statement as to the elected official's honor.
However, is it essential to use quote marks when referring to the proposal for allowing same sex couples to enter a civil contract which the state terms as "marriage"? Is it acceptable (or even required) for Catholics in their public writing to uphold Catholic principles on marriage rather than submitt to a sense of political correctness? Is there any reason to object or making an accusation of uncivility to a sincere Catholic who refers to Cindy McCain, Jeri Thompson or Judith Guiliani as the "wife" of a Republican leader? To speak of Senator McCain's "marriage"?
...and add Nancy Reagan to the above.
Well, it would be good to hear from a canon lawyer on this, but my layman's understanding is that the Catholic Church has always recognized as lawful marriages between two non-Catholics such as Sen. McCain and his second wife or Sen. Thompson and his second wife.
And I think that the Church also recognizes civil marriages as lawful (although not sacramental) even if the participants were not free to enter into sacramental marriage; presumably you are using Mayor Giuliani as an example of that situation.
But the Catholic Church (and every other civilized organization or society on Earth, so far as I am aware) had never recognized a "marriage" between two men or between two women, until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pulled that one out of its hat a few years ago. In fact, even the SJC concluded that it was necessary to
So I think it's perfectly reasonable to use quotation marks around the word in that context.
Brassband --
so one may use the term marriage for a lawful marriage. And a lawful marriage is what the civil law says is a marriage?
Well, I don't think that's what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant.
Getting back to Ron Paul at the March for Life...
I was at the March for Life on Tuesday and heard him speak. It was incredible to hear such a strong libertarian argument for the Pro-Life cause. Basically: Liberty and Human Rights began with the Right to Life.
If you consider the Catholic teachings on the Life issues, Ron Paul is the closest of all the Republicans still in the field to the consistent-life ethic as articulated by the late Cardinal Joseph Berardin of Chicago. He's Pro-Life on abortion, against the federal death penalty and would be closer to the Just War Theory (although he might not call it that).
I'm conceed that some of Ron Paul's statements (inc. those on the Civil War, immigration and birth-right citizenship) and those disgusting newsletters do give me a great deal of pause.
But, looking at the current field, I think he probably is the best choice.
"Well, I don't think that's what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant.
brassband"
Okay. Let me try again. You would certainly not consider me impolite or uncivil if I, animated by my Catholic faith, wrote of gay "marriage" and Cindy McCain as Senator McCain's "wife," would you?
I think some of the previous commenters have raised the main points I had to offer. This issue has been covered several times on the CFRP blog, so I forward further inquiry there.
This article is being placed in the print version of NCR next week, it will probably go with a more extensive editing which should resolve some of the points raised, in terms of adding needed clarity and context, for one, I would hope.
Thank you.
In response to Nathan: "So what say you about states defining marriage? It's certainly within their bounds to do so. But if Vermont recognizes gay marriage and North Dakota doesn't, then we've got a big problem under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution."
I understand this concern. However, the fight would be much easier fought on a local level than the national level wouldn't you agree? There are exceptions to every rule, but you don't modify rules to fit exceptions. The Federal Government has over extended the power authorized it by the Constitution. I think even the pro-life movement would make greater grounds if the issue of abortion was turned over to the states. We are fighting at local abortion mills waiting for politicians in D.C. to back us up? How will our voice be heard? But if we had the power to influence our own communities without having to influence the entire country at the same time we would have a much less daunting task ahead of us on a number of issues. I think we need to re-analyze Paul's ideas in light of the Church's social teachings and we would find he understands them far more than we give him credit for.
Ron Paul's representative was well received at the Log Cabin Republican meeting on January 16, according to press reports. He affirmed that Ron Paul supports the right of states to legalize gay marriage and opposes federal interference.
He doesn't sound like a good candidate any more. We need someone who will go to war(figuratively) with us against the perverting of America, not someone who will pat the homosexuals on the back and do nothing to stop them!
Ron Paul has named two gay guys to be slated as his delegates to the Republican National Convention hre in DC. I'm not registered in the Republican Party, so I'll have no say on their election. But maybe Thomas' vote will put them over the top!
LvB - WE need to go to war. As long as we sit back and wait for big government to intervene we will get no where.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
