Ron Paul - Gay Marriage Quicksand

House Web Site ^ | 3-2-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

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.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.

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.

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.

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.

It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.

Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.

[laotzu]

"We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership"

AMEN

Marriage should never have been the governments business.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Supreme Court can and probably will easily nationalize and Constitutionalize a right to gay marriage. DOMA as a mere statute is next to worthless. Ron Paul is blind.

[ClearCase_guy]

Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts.

The Civil War ended the problem of secession.
It was the government edict known as the Emancipation Proclamtion that freed the slaves. And it was a Constituional Amendment (14) that nailed it down.

I disagree with Paul on this. The Gay Marriage fiasco has a lot in common with Dred Scott:

"I'm a slave in this southern state. If I go to a northern state, am I still a slave?"
"I'm married in this state. If I go to that state, am I still married?"

[azhenfud]

The DOMA wouldn't need constitutionalizing if states LISTENED to their own voters:


California Proposition 22


Proposition 22

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.

Full election returns are available on the California Secretary of State website (PDF - 73KB).

[LandofLincoln]

True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.

I realize it. EVERYTHING that the Federal Government has gotten into, has gotten progressively worse under their watch.

[The Gunner]

Problem is, the IRS made it "Government business".

[maeng]

One does not need sight to realize that so-called gay marriage is wrong! Ron Paul is right-on!

[MarcoPolo]

I love Ron Paul.

I have been wary of any federal intervention as well, but I was concerned that the Full Faith Clause would make my state recognize gay marriage against its will. I am happy however to see that there is already a federal act which defines what can and cannot fall under that clause for protection.

This would make a Constitutional amendment superfluous. I agree that placing something so personal and intimate as marriage under federal jurisdiction only serves the purposes of the evil left. They will use this precedent to make other federal laws regarding marriage which we would not at all agree with.

[maeng]

One does not need sight to realize that so-called gay marriage is wrong! Ron Paul is right-on!

[Qwinn]

It was a great and well thought out article until this line:

"In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the [full faith and credit] clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage."

Erm. Duh. Was the MA rationalization of gay marriage enacted by the legislature, or was it mandated by a STATE COURT JUDGEMENT?

The States won't enact gay marriage through a legislature - they can't, not on any wide scale. Maybe a state or three at best, and it's obvious that won't be enough for them. They'll make a COURT JUDGEMENT that gay marriage -must- be legal, and as this author points out, the Supreme Court -does- apply the full faith and credit clause to STATE COURT JUDGEMENTS.

And besides, the entire full faith and credit issue is utterly beside the point. The federal government has to have a position of it's own, regardless of whether or not it forces the States to adhere to their position. Federal taxes, social security benefits, a dozen other issues - the federal government interacts -directly- with married couples on a regular basis. It is not practical (nor Constitutional) for the federal government to apply it's rules on SS and taxes based on the laws that happen to be in place in the state in question. The federal government -must- treat all citizens of all States the same, regardless of what State they live in.

Even if some States legalize gay marriage, and some don't, and the feds do not force those that don't from recognizing them, the federal government -itself- still has to take a position for the sake of taxes, social security, etc. Which is what makes all the arguing about the full faith and credit clause rather pointless - or at least only relevant insofar as whether the federal government will impose it's inevitable decision on every State.

Qwinn

[DSHambone]

Ron is almost right here. We need to end Civil Marriage and just have Family Registration for those that want to establish a basis for paternity, taxes, inhertiance, medical, and end-of life issues. And that would be open to same-sex couples on a State by State basis.

[frossca]

Would someone please clear something up for me?

The homosexual lobby is going to hang their hat (or should I say veil) on the full faith and credit clause to have there "marriages" recognized in every state.

Then, if my state allows me to carry a concealed weapon, should I not then be allowed to carry it in New York?

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is an example of the great alliance between Liberals and Conservatives: both wish marriage to be a governmental institution and thus subject to political whims. Each group group hopes that the political winds will blow their way, at least for a while.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Austin Willard Wright]

I agree with Paul but unfortunately the family is pretty much dead or dying anyway as the welfare state takes over its former functions. The debate over gay marriage is ultimately beside the point if this trend continues.

[epluribus_2]

Wrong Ron. It is not entirely or maybe not even mostly a religious issue. It's not even a love and committment issue. It is a financial issue. Period. Follow the flaming purple money. It is my company having to pay to insure this relationship for no good reason, whereas real marriages are supported by institutions and government because real marriages often need one spouse to be unable to work to have and raise our future citizens.

[ml/nj]

Marriage should never have been the governments business.

Maybe.

But it has been for as long as any of us can remember. We got a license from the government to get married. All sorts of property (and other) laws refer to marriage. By changing the definition of marriage, we change all those laws too. It's a very bad idea, undoubtedly laced with all sorts of unintended consequences.

ML/NJ

[billbears]

bump later

[Protagoras]

Ron Paul is blind.

Others should have such vision.