Ron Paul supports DOMA

[mgc1961]

Texas congressman and potential presidential aspirant Ron Paul told a religious conservative group in Iowa Monday that he supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a matter of states’ rights, but he seemed confused when asked about the court decision that brought marriage equality to that state.

Speaking to the group Family Leader in Pella, Paul said of DOMA, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” The Des Moines Registerreports. DOMA, which President Obama and the Justice Department said they will no longer defend in court, allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and also prevents federal recognition of such unions.

Paul, a 75-year-old libertarian-leaning Republican, was asked if he agreed with the 2009 Iowa supreme court ruling for marriage equality, then responded that he hadn’t read that “report” but supported each state’s right to legislate on marriage. An aide intervened, and Paul said marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married, and that it becomes a state concern only when one state tries to impose its views on another.

Read more at http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/07/Ron_Paul_Supports_DOMA/

Ah, the old state's rights argument. Where have I previously heard that one?

[inademv]

1. So much for libertarianism n/t

[mgc1961]

4. Or civility.

:silly:

[musette_sf]

2. "libertarianism" usually translates into

"everyone I don't agree with should have their civil rights determined (i.e., voted on) on a state by state basis"

e.g.: women
e.g.: LGBT

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Obama also says it is a spiritual matter and also says it should

be up to individual States. Both men seem deeply confused and steeped in fantastical supposition and superstition.

[Kennah]

5. Not surprising given Ayn Rand's views towards GLBTs

[Fearless]

6. Well if you've ever seen the movie Bruno, you'd understand his stance on

GLBTQ rights.

[jody]

7. Isn't Paul a Libertarian who runs as a Republican, not a "libertarian-leaning Republican"? n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. He says he is, but declarations like the one above contradict that. -nt

[Meldread]

8. This should have been the follow up question:

"If you believe that marriage should be determined on a state-by-state basis, does this mean you oppose the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which federalized the issue of interracial marriage, and then declared it legal thereby taking it out of the hands of states?"

Based upon his son's past troubles this would have left Ronny boy sputtering for an answer.

[TheWraith]

9. No, he'd have a case for that if DOMA stopped with not requiring inter-state recognition.

But DOMA very explicitly goes beyond protecting the right of each state to their own definition, and creates an overarching federal definition which applies to anything above the state level. And which makes Ron Paul a hypocrite. Not that I'm really that surprised.

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. I fail to see why so many people have a favorable opinion of this jackwad.

He's not exactly renowned for his tolerance.

[GodlessBiker]

12. A state needs to agree to recognize an out-of-state marriage. Iowa can't make Florida do anything.

[laconicsax]

13. Wait...so he supports legislation that restricts state's rights because he's for state's rights.

Do I have that right?

[ruggerson]

14. He's completely forgetting about the clause which denies federal recognition

n/t