The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks
Wall Street Journal
August 18, 2007; Page A5
Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several legislative earmarks intended to fund government activity inconsistent with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an important mitigating factor which your editorial ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the earmarked bills.
In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of legislation that allows for the inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.
Evan Pittman
Atlanta
It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would not have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal tax dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely because he believes that that money is theirs, and its redistribution according to federal whim is an economic injustice.
Kate Rick
Wentworth, N.H.
If Ron Paul wanted to get money back in earmarks for his district, why didn't he make an "earmark" of a tax refund for every resident of his district, rather than "strategically accidentally" enriching friendly special interests with taxpayer dollars?
Sorry, the excuses don't wash.
Cheers,
Brian
bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks Wall Street Journal
August 18, 2007; Page A5 Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several legislative earmarks intended to fund government activity inconsistent with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an important mitigating factor which your editorial ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the earmarked bills.
In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of legislation that allows for the inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.
Evan Pittman
Atlanta
It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would not have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal tax dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely because he believes that that money is theirs, and its redistribution according to federal whim is an economic injustice.
Kate Rick
Wentworth, N.H.
On 8/18/07, CK <xe@...> wrote: Ron Paul Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%
We can do the same thing next weekend!
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
Don't forget to Digg It
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
CK aka Chris
Because the rest of Congress probably wouldn't have
passed the resolution to add those earmarks to the
bill. Remember it's a game in DC Brian. You can't just
do whatever you want, whenever you want. You have to
follow the rules that those in power have made. So he
uses whatever loopholes he can find.
I have to say one thing on this though. I do not like
how he earmarks anything even if he votes against the
final bill. It is one of the few things I do not like
about Ron Paul, but it won't keep me from supporting
him and voting for him.
Peace,
-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
If Ron Paul wanted to get money back in earmarks for
his district, why didn't he make an "earmark" of a
tax refund for every resident of his district,
rather than "strategically accidentally" enriching
friendly special interests with taxpayer dollars?Sorry, the excuses don't wash.
Cheers,
Brian
bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks Wall
Street Journal
August 18, 2007; Page A5 Ron Paul has indeed been
responsible for several legislative earmarks
intended to fund government activity inconsistent
with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his
actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an
important mitigating factor which your editorial
("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention:
Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the
earmarked bills.
In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of
legislation that allows for the inclusion of these
earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a
federal government sadly keen on spending, his
district deserves the same treatment as others.
Considering that extra earmarks do not increase
federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.
Evan Pittman
Atlanta
It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so
outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would not
have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal tax
dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely
because he believes that that money is theirs, and
its redistribution according to federal whim is an
economic injustice.
Kate Rick
Wentworth, N.H.On 8/18/07, CK <xe@...> wrote: Ron Paul
Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%We can do the same thing next weekend!
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
Don't forget to Digg It
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
CK aka Chris
--
This is not a political agenda. This is not a party
platform. It is a
revolution.
Stop Dreaming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
www.ronpaul2008.com
--
This is not a political agenda. This is not a party
platform. It is a
revolution.
Stop Dreaming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
www.ronpaul2008.com--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will
be sent to everyone on this mailing list (
ronpaul-30@...)
This message was sent by CK (xe@...) from
The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about CK, visit his/her member
profile:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/30/members/4268765/
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
settings, click here:
http://www.meetup…com/account/?tab=commMeetup.com Customer Service: support@...
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA--
"It is to me alone that present and future
generations will look for the origin of their
immense happiness." ~ Charles Fourier--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will
be sent to everyone on this mailing list
(ronpaul-30@...)
This message was sent by Bob Ewing
(bobewing@...) from The Arlington/Alexandria
Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about Bob Ewing, visit his/her member
profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
settings, click hereMeetup.com Customer Service: support@...
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you
sell.
The Strategic Nature of Ron
Paul's EarmarksWall Street Journal
August 18, 2007; Page A5Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several
legislative earmarks
intended to fund government activity inconsistent
with his libertarian
philosophy. At face value, his actions seem
hypocritical; however, there is
an important mitigating factor which your editorial
("Ron Paul's
Earmarks,"
Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote
against the passage of
the earmarked bills.In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of
legislation that allows for the
inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that
in the face of a federal
government sadly keen on spending, his district
deserves the same treatment
as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not
increase federal spending,
he owes this to his constituents.*Evan Pittman*
*Atlanta*It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so
outnumbered in Congress, his
constituents would not have to ask for 94 cents back
from each federal tax
dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely
because he believes that
that money is theirs, and its redistribution
according to federal whim is an
economic injustice.*Kate Rick*
*Wentworth, N.H.*>
> Ron Paul Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%
>
> We can do the same thing next weekend!
>
>
>
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
>
> Don't forget to Digg It
>
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
>
>
> CK aka Chris
>
> --
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a
party platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> www.ronpaul2008.com
> --
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a
party platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
=== message truncated ===
The rest of Congress wouldn't have passed it, so it's no use trying?
I doubt that's the case, frankly.
Dr. Paul has introduced a number of bills that had no chance of passing, including an anti-choice constitutional amendment, a bill to overrule the Supreme Court's "Lawrence" decision and restore state sodomy laws, a bill to close the Mexican border, and a half-dozen others. "Passability" has never been much of a concern for the Ron Paul agenda before.
Clearly, the motivation vis-a-vis the earmark was getting a nice, big greasy slab of pork to a special interest buddy, while simultaneously attempting to preserve the "outsider" image. It works on some, but doesn't pass the smell test -- especially when the "passability test" is invoked. Paul's entire multi-decade career as a state employee has been characterized mostly as a "maverick who introduces bills that have no chance of passage and always votes no." "Passability" has never been on his radar screen, let alone a concern for him.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Because the rest of Congress probably wouldn't have
passed the resolution to add those earmarks to the
bill. Remember it's a game in DC Brian. You can't just
do whatever you want, whenever you want. You have to
follow the rules that those in power have made. So he
uses whatever loopholes he can find.
I have to say one thing on this though. I do not like
how he earmarks anything even if he votes against the
final bill. It is one of the few things I do not like
about Ron Paul, but it won't keep me from supporting
him and voting for him.
Peace,
-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> If Ron Paul wanted to get money back in earmarks for
> his district, why didn't he make an "earmark" of a
> tax refund for every resident of his district,
> rather than "strategically accidentally" enriching
> friendly special interests with taxpayer dollars?
>
> Sorry, the excuses don't wash.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@…> wrote:
>
>
>
> The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks Wall
> Street Journal
> August 18, 2007; Page A5 Ron Paul has indeed been
> responsible for several legislative earmarks
> intended to fund government activity inconsistent
> with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his
> actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an
> important mitigating factor which your editorial
> ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention:
> Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the
> earmarked bills.
> In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of
> legislation that allows for the inclusion of these
> earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a
> federal government sadly keen on spending, his
> district deserves the same treatment as others.
> Considering that extra earmarks do not increase
> federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.
> Evan Pittman
> Atlanta
> It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so
> outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would not
> have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal tax
> dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely
> because he believes that that money is theirs, and
> its redistribution according to federal whim is an
> economic injustice.
> Kate Rick
> Wentworth, N.H.
>
>
> On 8/18/07, CK <xe@…> wrote: Ron Paul
> Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%
>
> We can do the same thing next weekend!
>
>
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
>
>
> Don't forget to Digg It
>
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
>
>
> CK aka Chris
>
> –
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a party
> platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> www.ronpaul2008.com
> –
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a party
> platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> www.ronpaul2008.com
>
>
>
> –
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will
> be sent to everyone on this mailing list (
> ronpaul-30@…)
> This message was sent by CK (xe@…) from
> The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
> To learn more about CK, visit his/her member
> profile:
> http://ronpaul.meetup.com/30/members/4268765/
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
> settings, click here:
> http://www.meetup…com/account/?tab=comm
>
> Meetup.com Customer Service: support@…
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
>
>
>
>
>
> –
> "It is to me alone that present and future
> generations will look for the origin of their
> immense happiness." ~ Charles Fourier
>
>
>
> –
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will
> be sent to everyone on this mailing list
> (ronpaul-30@…)
> This message was sent by Bob Ewing
> (bobewing@…) from The Arlington/Alexandria
> Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
> To learn more about Bob Ewing, visit his/her member
> profile
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
> settings, click here
>
> Meetup.com Customer Service: support@…
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you
> sell.
>
> The Strategic Nature of Ron
> Paul's EarmarksWall Street Journal
> August 18, 2007; Page A5
>
> Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several
> legislative earmarks
> intended to fund government activity inconsistent
> with his libertarian
> philosophy. At face value, his actions seem
> hypocritical; however, there is
> an important mitigating factor which your editorial
> ("Ron Paul's
> Earmarks,"
> Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote
> against the passage of
> the earmarked bills.
>
> In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of
> legislation that allows for the
> inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that
> in the face of a federal
> government sadly keen on spending, his district
> deserves the same treatment
> as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not
> increase federal spending,
> he owes this to his constituents.
>
> *Evan Pittman*
> *Atlanta*
>
> It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so
> outnumbered in Congress, his
> constituents would not have to ask for 94 cents back
> from each federal tax
> dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely
> because he believes that
> that money is theirs, and its redistribution
> according to federal whim is an
> economic injustice.
>
> *Kate Rick*
> *Wentworth, N.H.*
>
>
> >
> > Ron Paul Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%
> >
> > We can do the same thing next weekend!
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
> >
> > Don't forget to Digg It
> >
>
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
> >
> >
> > CK aka Chris
> >
> > –
> > This is not a political agenda. This is not a
> party platform. It is a
> > revolution.
> > Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> > www.ronpaul2008.com
> > –
> > This is not a political agenda. This is not a
> party platform. It is a
> > revolution.
> > Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
>
=== message truncated ===
Brian,
I agree with you and TJ that Dr. Paul's support of special interest earmarks for his constituents is a mark against him. But I haven't heard anything about him having "special interest buddies" he is trying to benefit through these earmarks, let alone enough evidence to suggest that is "clearly, the motivation." According to the Wall Street Journal piece, IIRC, his office's policy is to pass along most earmark requests from constituents and to do so without discrimination. Perhaps your idea of making an "earmark" for every district resident in the form of tax relief has not occurred to him. I would encourage you to contact his office and suggest it.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Well, first of all, classifying Ron Paul as a state
employee is kind of off the wall, when he donates all
his salary to charity, he is the epitomy of someone
who serves his people.
But I find myself agreeing with you that Dr. Paul
should not be taking ANY PART in pork while a
Congressman. Of course, it is so easy to blame our
elected officials for what they do, when we are on the
outside looking in. I know that any "purist" who got
elected would be a two year and out Congressperson
because they would be eaten alive unless they learned
the tricks that have to be played this day and age to
keep power.
But I have to say, he is still the best
Congressperson, and the best person with a chance to
become president in the race, cause Libertarians
candidates have a lesser chance than someone with an R
or D next to their name, but I hope new leadership in
the LPUSA will change that in about 20 years.
A few questions for you Brian. I don't know why I
waited so long to ask you these.
If Steve Kubby or anyone running NOW as a Libertarian
for President, ended up running for the presidency as
a D or R in their respected primary would you support
them or not? Would you support Ron Paul if he were the
Libertarian Party nominee again? Do you make your
choices for political office based only on those who
are pro gay rights and pro abortion rights?
I am also wondering if there is anything good you like
about Ron Paul, because it seems that man can do no
right in your eyes. I would also like to ask if you
think anyone that is in SF political office or
California political office has done better than Ron
Paul, especially any Democrats and how?
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
The rest of Congress wouldn't have passed it, so
it's no use trying?I doubt that's the case, frankly.
Dr. Paul has introduced a number of bills that had
no chance of passing, including an anti-choice
constitutional amendment, a bill to overrule the
Supreme Court's "Lawrence" decision and restore
state sodomy laws, a bill to close the Mexican
border, and a half-dozen others. "Passability" has
never been much of a concern for the Ron Paul agenda
before.Clearly, the motivation vis-a-vis the earmark was
getting a nice, big greasy slab of pork to a special
interest buddy, while simultaneously attempting to
preserve the "outsider" image. It works on some,
but doesn't pass the smell test -- especially when
the "passability test" is invoked. Paul's entire
multi-decade career as a state employee has been
characterized mostly as a "maverick who introduces
bills that have no chance of passage and always
votes no." "Passability" has never been on his
radar screen, let alone a concern for him.Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Because the rest of
Congress probably wouldn't have
passed the resolution to add those earmarks to the
bill. Remember it's a game in DC Brian. You can't
just
do whatever you want, whenever you want. You have
to
follow the rules that those in power have made. So
he
uses whatever loopholes he can find.I have to say one thing on this though. I do not
like
how he earmarks anything even if he votes against
the
final bill. It is one of the few things I do not
like
about Ron Paul, but it won't keep me from
supporting
him and voting for him.Peace,
-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> If Ron Paul wanted to get money back in earmarks
for
> his district, why didn't he make an "earmark" of
a
> tax refund for every resident of his district,
> rather than "strategically accidentally"
enriching
> friendly special interests with taxpayer dollars?
>
> Sorry, the excuses don't wash.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks Wall
> Street Journal
> August 18, 2007; Page A5 Ron Paul has indeed been
> responsible for several legislative earmarks
> intended to fund government activity inconsistent
> with his libertarian philosophy. At face value,
his
> actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an
> important mitigating factor which your editorial
> ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to
mention:
> Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of
the
> earmarked bills.
> In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of
> legislation that allows for the inclusion of
these
> earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a
> federal government sadly keen on spending, his
> district deserves the same treatment as others.
> Considering that extra earmarks do not increase
> federal spending, he owes this to his
constituents.
> Evan Pittman
> Atlanta
> It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so
> outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would
not
> have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal
tax
> dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington
precisely
> because he believes that that money is theirs,
and
> its redistribution according to federal whim is
an
> economic injustice.
> Kate Rick
> Wentworth, N.H.
>
>
> On 8/18/07, CK <xe@...> wrote: Ron
Paul
> Wins Alabama Straw Poll with 81%
>
> We can do the same thing next weekend!
>
>
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/LATEST/70818015
>
>
> Don't forget to Digg It
>
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Paul_grabs_Republican_Straw_Poll
>
>
> CK aka Chris
>
> --
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a
party
> platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> www.ronpaul2008.com
> --
> This is not a political agenda. This is not a
party
> platform. It is a
> revolution.
> Stop Dreaming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> www.ronpaul2008.com
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message
will
> be sent to everyone on this mailing list (
> ronpaul-30@...)
> This message was sent by CK (xe@...)
from
> The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul 2008 Meetup
Group.
> To learn more about CK, visit his/her member
> profile:
> http://ronpaul.meetup.com/30/members/4268765/
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
> settings, click here:
> http://www.meetup…com/account/?tab=comm
>
> Meetup.com Customer Service: support@...
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "It is to me alone that present and future
> generations will look for the origin of their
> immense happiness." ~ Charles Fourier
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message
will
> be sent to everyone on this mailing list
> (ronpaul-30@...)
> This message was sent by Bob Ewing
> (bobewing@...) from The
Arlington/Alexandria
> Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
> To learn more about Bob Ewing, visit his/her
member
> profile
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
> settings, click here
=== message truncated ===
TJ asks:
If Steve Kubby or anyone running NOW as a Libertarian
for President, ended up running for the presidency as
a D or R in their respected primary would you support
them or not? <<
It depends on whether or not Kubby or the unnamed other Libertarians in question (who run the gamut) take genuinely libertarian positions, or are a bit more like Ron Paul, who takes a few vague almost-libertarian positions while advancing a more conservative Republican position. It also depends on whether that Libertarian running as a Republican had a snowball's chance of getting the Republican nomination.
If it was a Kubby whose platform remained unchanged from his present platform, and who had a chance of getting more than 3% of the vote, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Would you support Ron Paul if he were the
Libertarian Party nominee again? <<
No.
Do you make your
choices for political office based only on those who
are pro gay rights and pro abortion rights?<<
No -- however, I will not support a candidate who favors statist oppression of either gays or women, just as I wouldn't support a candidate who opposes the right to keep and bear arms. Absolute rights are absolutely non-negotiable.
I am also wondering if there is anything good you like
about Ron Paul, because it seems that man can do no
right in your eyes.<<
It's not that he has done "no right in my eyes," but rather, that he's just another Republican. He's nothing to get excited about, unless you're also excited about other Republicans like Guiliani or Romney.
He has said some things that are positive about ending the drug war, and protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Then again, he has flip-flopped so much on positions over the years that I cannot rest assured that he won't flip-flop on those positions as well. So I am not excited.
I would also like to ask if you
think anyone that is in SF political office or
California political office has done better than Ron
Paul, especially any Democrats and how?<<
Ron Paul has been completely ineffective in actual policy changes, which is how I'd measure "success." So to that degree, it's difficult for anyone to do worse. And since we all know what California's political climate is like, I'd hardly say there's anyone "better" out there either, as an incumbent.
Cheers,
Brian
Driving home from work yesterday, I happened upon an interview with Ron Paul
on “Free Speech Radio News,” a program on Berkeley’s KPFA community radio
station. Normally further to the left than even Air America radio, I was
amazed to hear how enthusiastic KPFA was about Ron Paul’s campaign. This
could be the first time in my memory that they’ve ever bothered to interview
any Republican candidates.
They concentrated mainly on Paul’s opposition to the war, but also went into
detail about his opposition to the United States’ involvement in the U.N.,
the W.T.O. and the Federal Reserve. Rather than ridiculing him, as I was
expecting, the reporter seemed to be in awe of him, noting that no other
candidate of any party maintains such principled positions like these.
Of particular note to this group, Paul mentioned that “marriage is a
religious institution, not a government one” and since the separation of
church and state is codified in the Constitution, he therefore supports
same-sex marriage, and even says the government has no business sanctioning
civil unions. Marriage is a contract between individuals, and the
government should have no involvement in such matters.
Terry Floyd
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date: 8/24/2007
2:59 PM
But marriage is NOT a religious institution. It started as a secular
social construct for the transfer of property. Christianity merely
co-opted marriage the same way it co-opted illuminating evergreen
trees the last week in December.
We have to stop conceding the point that marriage started as a
religious institution. And we have to start educating the
"traditionalists" about just how much marriage really has changed in a
very short time.
Not that long ago, wives were legally the property of their husbands.
And not long before that, one husband could have many wives (though
not vice-versa). Society advanced, so we rejected these archaic
traditions. It's now time to reject the archaic one-man-one-woman
tradition that denies same-sex couples equal treatment by the rest of
society.
I've written to Ron Paul on multiple occasions to make this case, but
either his handlers are keeping this information from him, or he's
simply too mired in his own religious dogma to accept it.
I see no difference in the level of hypocrisy between Ron Paul saying
he supports gay marriage after voting to ban it and John Kerry going
duck hunting after voting for a gun ban.
Rob
Driving home from work yesterday, I happened upon an interview with
Ron Paul
on "Free Speech Radio News," a program on Berkeley's KPFA community
radio
station. Normally further to the left than even Air America radio,
I was
amazed to hear how enthusiastic KPFA was about Ron Paul's campaign.
This
could be the first time in my memory that they've ever bothered to
interview
any Republican candidates.
They concentrated mainly on Paul's opposition to the war, but also
went into
detail about his opposition to the United States' involvement in the
U.N.,
the W.T.O. and the Federal Reserve. Rather than ridiculing him, as
I was
expecting, the reporter seemed to be in awe of him, noting that no other
candidate of any party maintains such principled positions like these.Of particular note to this group, Paul mentioned that "marriage is a
religious institution, not a government one" and since the separation of
church and state is codified in the Constitution, he therefore supports
same-sex marriage, and even says the government has no business
sanctioning
civil unions. Marriage is a contract between individuals, and the
government should have no involvement in such matters.Terry Floyd
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date:
8/24/2007
Agreed Rob...it is a private contract...not religious unless the couple
want to make it so.
Mike
Agreed.
Marriage was not, and is not, a religious institution.
Marriage, as a legal concept, dates from the 1200s under the English system of common law upon which the United States is based. It was a system of recognition of mutual agreement and obligation based upon a contractual system that was implicitly and explicitly embraced by the parties who entered into the marriage. In England, the religious declarations of the day (first by the Pope, and then later by the Anglican church) had no validity or relevance as a declaration of "marriage." Marriage was determined by the Crown, who recognized it either through the borough council, or the determination of the local nobility subservient to the Crown.
Even after the state religion in England became Anglicanism, unifying the Crown and the religious authorities, the Crown explicitly required separate certification of marriage. Without a declaration from the Crown, a "marriage" didn't exist.
Ironically, American tradition broke from British colonial law by assigning "marriage" no legal status whatsoever (except under the common law) until the 1850s, when marriage licenses were instituted in order to avoid interracial marriage.
Under the system of law popular in common law countries like the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia, since the early 1900s, "marriage" has been a mutually-accepted legal status that confers mutual responsibilities and benefits -- and that is mandatory for immigration sponsorship, joint ownership without taxation, property transfer, etc.
There's utterly no scholarship or accuracy behind the claims that marriage is "religious." And while the state should not have the all-encompassing power over individuals' lives that a common-law license approach creates, individuals should have equal access to that system so long as it exists.
Ron Paul has voted to retail that system of licensing and, as a strong advocate of the DOMA, is in favor of perpetuating the ancient "tradition" that the state -- not individuals -- determine who is married and what that entails.
Cheers,
Brian
Rob <robpower@...> wrote: But marriage is NOT a religious institution. It started as a secular
social construct for the transfer of property. Christianity merely
co-opted marriage the same way it co-opted illuminating evergreen
trees the last week in December.
We have to stop conceding the point that marriage started as a
religious institution. And we have to start educating the
"traditionalists" about just how much marriage really has changed in a
very short time.
Not that long ago, wives were legally the property of their husbands.
And not long before that, one husband could have many wives (though
not vice-versa). Society advanced, so we rejected these archaic
traditions. It's now time to reject the archaic one-man-one-woman
tradition that denies same-sex couples equal treatment by the rest of
society.
I've written to Ron Paul on multiple occasions to make this case, but
either his handlers are keeping this information from him, or he's
simply too mired in his own religious dogma to accept it.
I see no difference in the level of hypocrisy between Ron Paul saying
he supports gay marriage after voting to ban it and John Kerry going
duck hunting after voting for a gun ban.
Rob
>
> Driving home from work yesterday, I happened upon an interview with
Ron Paul
> on "Free Speech Radio News," a program on Berkeley's KPFA community
radio
> station. Normally further to the left than even Air America radio,
I was
> amazed to hear how enthusiastic KPFA was about Ron Paul's campaign.
This
> could be the first time in my memory that they've ever bothered to
interview
> any Republican candidates.
>
>
>
> They concentrated mainly on Paul's opposition to the war, but also
went into
> detail about his opposition to the United States' involvement in the
U.N.,
> the W.T.O. and the Federal Reserve. Rather than ridiculing him, as
I was
> expecting, the reporter seemed to be in awe of him, noting that no other
> candidate of any party maintains such principled positions like these.
>
>
>
> Of particular note to this group, Paul mentioned that "marriage is a
> religious institution, not a government one" and since the separation of
> church and state is codified in the Constitution, he therefore supports
> same-sex marriage, and even says the government has no business
sanctioning
> civil unions. Marriage is a contract between individuals, and the
> government should have no involvement in such matters.
>
>
>
> Terry Floyd
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date:
8/24/2007