James Younce wrote: JY) Granted, the text of the bill makes you think that his intent is to reduce the federal government's role in marriage and give more rights to the state; however, it does not sit well with me that he specifically is trying to limit the Federal jurisdiction over state/local government laws regarding marriage and then only as it relates to sex or sexual orientation. He makes no mention of state/local laws regarding marriage as it relates to religion, race, ethnic background, country of origin, disability or any other protected characteristic. Why only as it relates to sex or sexual orientation? (JY
It might be because that is the only area for which there is a prospect of Federal leverage on marriage being exerted -- in which case we should ask him if he supports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia, the 1967 landmark case that overturned state laws against miscegenation. It might be because, while he disagrees with the states' interest in procreation, he thinks that the states' interest in procreation meets a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review, while the states' interest in racial mixing does not. Or, he may just be a "homophobic bigot". If only we had a mind-reader who could tell us for sure... JY) [the Marriage Protection Act] makes no sense because it is saying that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction over Federal law. (JY I agree it's a ham-handed attempt to prevent the prospective use of Federal leverage against the states' ability to tie marriage in some way to procreation. However, the Constitution says in Art 3 Sec 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." I don't think the framers should have given this power to Congress, but it's just not tenable to claim that the MPA is prima facie unconstitutional because it limits the jurisdiction of federal courts. Of course, I'm only reading the "straight white suburban guy" version of the Constitution. The gay version may say something completely different. JY) I believe Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, not a Libertarian. (JY He's a libertarian who believes that the Constitution is by far our best hope for rolling back the federal government's insertion of its tentacles into all aspects of American life. I don't agree with Paul that at this point in history the federal government cannot be trusted to protect negative liberties from the actions of the states. However, Paul seems to judge that the federal government still gets negative liberties wrong often enough, and has a bad enough track record on them over the long run, that he'd rather use a chainsaw instead of a scalpel against the federal positive-rights nanny-state octopus. It's just not intellectually credible to read Paul out of the libertarian movement because we disagree with this judgment. JY) And much like the Republicans & Democrats, he reroutes his philosophies when it suits him.he's only a Constitutionalist when it doesn't reduce the votes he gets. (JY This is a bizarre assertion. There is surely no political figure on the federal stage who has held his views as consistently as Ron Paul has over the last quarter century. The positions he takes are obviously not tailored to his district, nor to his Christian co-religionists, nor to the Republican Party, nor to the Libertarian Party, nor even to the Constitution Party. You're confusing the positions he takes with how he selects and presents them to various audiences. Every political figure does this -- including every presidential candidate the LP has ever nominated. I disagree with many other of Paul's positions beyond just those related to gay rights, but I still support his campaign because of its fundamental message that the Constitution is the strongest lever for liberty in an America whose morality should not be legislated. I refuse to lump Paul in with nanny-staters and socialists just because I disagree with how he applies his message to some issues that are important to me as a gay-friendly atheist liberventionist green geolibertarian. Brian Holtz blog: Knowing <http://knowinghumans.net/> Humans book: Human <http://humanknowledge.net/> Knowledge 2006-2008 LP <http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html> PlatCom 2007-2009 <http://knowinghumans.net/search/label/LPCA> LPCA ExCom 2004-2008 for Congress, <http://marketliberal.org/> CA14 (Silicon Valley) <http://humanknowledge.net/>
