U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | gay marriage |
gay marriage
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:4
The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values. It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with a majority of American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known through their support for President Bush. This contributed to the “mandate” the President received more than any other issue. But it begs the question: If the mandate given was motivated by views held on moral values, does the President get carte blanche on all the other programs that are much less conservative? It appears the President and his neo-con advisors assume the answer is yes.
gay marriage
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:43
The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.
gay marriage
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
gay marriage
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
Gay Marriage Quicksand
gay marriage
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.
gay marriage
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.
gay marriage
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
gay marriage
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
gay marriage
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The US House passed the Marriage Protection Act last week, a bill designed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution is not used to impose gay marriage on Texas or any other state. You may remember Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which explicitly authorizes states to refuse recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitated further congressional action. The Act underscores an important legal point: Marbury vs. Madison did not alter the congressional power to regulate and limit federal court jurisdiction, which is plainly stated in Article III. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. In other words, the federalist concept of checks and balances applies to the judiciary just as it does to the legislative and executive branches. The Marriage Protection Act represents a long-overdue exercise of the congressional power to limit and define federal court jurisdiction.
gay marriage
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Founders never intended for a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges to decide social policy for the entire nation. Just as Texas is not required to recognize medical licenses, law licenses, or driving licenses from other states, it ought not be forced to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere. Already some same-sex couples have sued in federal court to force the nationwide recognition of their marriages, so the Marriage Protection Act is needed to preserve states’ rights. Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists
gay marriage
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with the gay marriage issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.
gay marriage
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week’s debate over the constitutional marriage amendment brought even greater attention to the issue of activist judges. From gay marriage to Boy Scouts to frivolous lawsuits to the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans have grown increasingly distrustful and suspicious of our federal courts- and rightfully so. Never in our history have unaccountable federal judges wielded more power over our lives.
gay marriage
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.
gay marriage
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.
gay marriage
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.