Ron Paul’s position on marriage
Esther Horner Roorda has a good defense for the marriage issue:
“While it’s true that RP doesn’t support a constitutional amendment defining marriage, Ron Paul does defend traditional marriage (he defends the Defense of Marriage Act for example) in the same way that he defends a pro-life stance. But as with the abortion issue, it is his approach that is different, not his resolve.
His approach is to recognize that the more we empower the federal government to weigh in on this issue, the more likely it is that they will impose a definition of marriage on everybody that we Christians cannot accept. Marriage is defined by God.
The federalists underestimated the nature of power. Patrick Henry and others were correct when they opposed them; and when they predicted this vast federal intrusion on all sorts of issues. Localized power is always a more transformative power, since it has the greater capacity to change the mind of the people.
Local churches and institutions can carry greater influence on local governments. Dr. Paul’s point is similar to his point about life: this is not about allowing states to act as they please, but rather allowing states to reclaim their rights to outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage. Granted that not all states would do so, but a vast majority would in my estimation. A Paul presidency would embolden states like South Carolina to act morally and biblically correct. Never forget that that the mind must be changed, before the law can be changed.
Also, it’s worth noting that seven years ago Ron Paul introduced a Marriage Protection Act that would have greatly reduced the courts power over the marriage issue and possibly spared many states from judicial activism on this issue. But because some people want a constitutional amendment, or nothing, we got nothing. Constitutional amendments are VERY hard to pass and with the current sexually permissive attitudes in the US it is unlikely a constitutional marriage amendment would ever become law.
I personally think it’s better to fight on the fronts where we actually have a chance of winning, which would be at the state level. Personally, I think the National Organization for Marriage organization has slandered Ron Paul. I will charitably hope it was done out of ignorance or misunderstanding rather than malice.”
David A Read adds:
“Government is always a two edged sword. If we give it the power to legislate what is right, it will then have the power to also legislate what is wrong. I fear that a majority of “evangelical Christians” entirely miss this point. They wish to usher in God’s righteousness through the legislature, though they should really be aware that such has NEVER happened in all of history, and is certainly not going to start happening now. A weak central government is the best condition for good to be advanced in the world.”
Related articles
- Romney Against Gay ‘Marriage ’ But OK With ‘Domestic Partnerships, ’ Gay Adoption, Gays in Military (cnsnews.com)
- Gingrich Signs Contentious Anti-Gay Marriage Pledge (huffingtonpost.com)
- Rick Santorum Wants To Invalidate Marriage Licenses Issued To Gay Couples (timesunion.com)
- Mitt Romney supports constitutional amendment to both allow AND ban gay marriage. Jackass. (dailykos.com)