A number of people have asked me why I am not supporting Ron Paul. There are a number of reasons, but there is one clear reason. Because of his support for so-called "same-sex" marriage. How do I know that he supports it? Here is a quote from Ron Paul, printed in the Philadelphia Bulletin (a pro-Paul newspaper): "'They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want; just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else,' Dr. Paul stated." He then goes onto to say that this is because government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place.
I disagree with Paul that the government should not be involved in marriage. The rights are from God, but government should be able to say who can marry (family members cannot marry one another, people should only have one spouse, children should not marry, etc). This promotes a healthy and growing society because marriage is primarily about procreation and family. The government needs to promote healthy families for the rearing and bringing up of children to further the society. One of these ways to promote families is by protecting traditional family as one man and one woman only.
It is dangerous for Ron Paul to say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry "as long as they don't impose this on anyone." It makes marriage meaningless and opens the door for group marriage, etc because maybe it won't bother anyone. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized then it will be imposed on the church and society that must now accept that union as perfectly fine even if it is against their beliefs. If you don't believe me, read Maggie Gallagher's article published in the Weekly Standard entitled, "Banned in Boston." She talks to a number of scholars who are in support of and against same-sex marriage and they all come to the same conclusion: religious liberty and same-sex unions cannot co-exist.
That is why I cannot support Ron Paul.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
First, I think you are taking the term 'support' too far. To me, support would indicate that Ron Paul would actively seek legislation to establish rights for gay marriages. That is not his platform. Rather he is opposed to government influence in private matters. What you are concerned about is that he does not support laws protecting marriage between one man one woman.
You are a lobbyist, so obviously you are going to support a person who shares your values and beliefs in the hope that once he(she) is in office, they will enact legislation enforcing your beliefs upon everyone else.
So since you are lobbying one way, there has to be someone else on the other side lobbying the other way. What if the other lobbyists person is elected and enacts legislation banning churches in America?
We are a democracy, so we elect those who we believe will reflect our interests the best. But anyway you look at it, there will be 'losers'. So why not have someone who believes in small government without excessive legislation. You let the people live their lives, as long as they don't interfere with others.
Ron Paul states he believes churches should be responsible for determining marriage. It wasn't until the government started handing out marriage licenses that things became the way they are today. He also believes churches should once again be responsible for defining marriage. So, if he put the power back in the church, that would completely address your issues.
One final thought. Currently this is a state level decision. If Ron Paul is elected, he certainly will not make this a federal issue, as you so claim he 'supports' to do.
With all that said... that was taking from a relatively neutral worldview (arrr, gcc). From a Christian perspective, it is different.
I'm not sure what I believe, and I don't know if I believe everything I said. But I just wanted to spice up the debate a little bit, provoke some intellectual conversation.
I like how Paul is small government and low taxes which stems from a libertarian standpoint, yet he is also pro-life. Actually my biggest concern with him is his plan of an immediate withdraw from Iraq. Forget why we are there, that is history, but the present and future Iraq depend on us helping them. If we pull out, it will be a field day of surrounding countries and religious sects swarming the country in a free for all. If we cut through the media BS and get the real story from the men and women on the ground, we are doing many good things there, and the innocent citizens are grateful. It is a few ill-willed people that ruin it for everyone. Hey, they are inflicting their will on others... that's anti-libertarian... Ron Paul should do something! ;)
Ok, enough for now.
Thanks for writing that. The article was very interesting too. It seems we are in for some strange times ahead.
Need another reason why you can't support Ron Paul? This one works for me. Though this is just one incident, he seems to incite situations similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNZS9ZuZcrg .
Read some of the comments too. Frankly, I find a lot of them pretty scary.
Michael, thanks for the comment, however, I'm not sure where you are going with it. Of course I am going to support a candidate who shares my beliefs on issues that are important to me. Why would I support someone who disagrees with me?
And yes, I know that there are people who are lobbying for the other side (btw, I am not a lobbyist). I'm not going to mince words here, they are wrong.
And even if Ron Paul doesn't push to legalize same-sex "marriage," I know that he does not support a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment which is necessary to protect marriage in this country. Plus his comment leads me to believe that he would oppose any such legislation.
"If same-sex "marriage" is legalized then it will be imposed on the church and society that must now accept that union as perfectly fine even if it is against their beliefs."
-This is why the government should not have gotten involved with marriage because now it has the power to force its view of marriage on the church.
Lauren,
Read this article from First Things, written by Michael Fragoso (a friend of mine, former Heritage intern) about the history of government involvement in marriage.
First, the youtube video. You shouldn't base support on a guy based on a video clip of 'supporters'. You should look at his platform and prior experience (which he has with over 17 years as a representative from Texas). Also I say 'supporters' cause that could have very easily have been staged. I'm sure people I know would stage something like that to make hillary look bad, so why not do it to make RP look bad.
Second, the First Things article. Ok, 'parents' being 'so politically correctly' called. Since when is that PC?!! What else do you call them in a article? Rents?
But, to clarify my first post... God gave us free will, did he not? He gave us the choice to sin and make mistakes. He also gave us some commandments to abide by. If you look at commandments 5-10, they all deal with relationships towards others (Man). So it appears that we have free will to make our own mistakes as long as it doesn't affect others.
That is what RP is talking about, the gov't should give us free will to live our lives as long as we don't bother others (aka, don't murder, steal, etc). You want someone to enact laws that will remove our free will and ability to make decisions.
Plus, is banning gay marriage going to make the people any less gay? No. So aren't you undermining the churches ability to minister to these people? Think, the gov't can't make them change their ways or make them realize their sin. It's the churches calling (reach out to the corners of the earth) to minister to these people. By ministering, you have a much better chance at allowing them to realize the truth and redeem their ways.
So, by having the gov't enact laws so we are all 'good people' sounds very much like Catholic theology where we just need to do good works. We all know that's not how it works.
Ok.. back to work
Post a Comment