tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
He is not anti gay.
Then I guess his co-sponsorship of the following bill.....
The Marriage Protection Act (MPA) is a bill in the United States Congress to amend the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA.[1] Originally introduced in 2003 as H.R. 3313 , the Republican-controlled 108th Congress passed it in the House in 2004, but not in the Senate.
...
Same-sex unions Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[189] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[189][190] Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[191] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[192] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[193] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[194][195] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[194]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[144] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
The Act was designed to protect DOMA by prohibiting federal courts from hearing cases like that of Nancy Wilson, who sued to have her relationship with Paula Schoenwether treated as marriage in Florida because it had been treated as marriage in Massachusetts (in that case, the federal court upheld DOMA in that jurisdiction).[3] The U.S. Constitution permits Congress to make "Exceptions" to court jurisdiction. The degree to which such exceptions may undermine federal separation of powers, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause, may render the MPA unconstitutional, according to Grossman.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation
Is perfectly ok with you.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
Ron PAUL Birthday Money bomb! Hurry! - 
Profile
RE: Ron PAUL Birthday Money bomb! Hurry! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread