Ron Paul Is The Only Choice For Catholics

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314827970' post='2298308']
if we make a federal law that makes same-sex marriage illegal, that would set a precedent for the federal government defining marriage (which, to my knowledge, it does not; marriage is currently a state thing). with that precedent, a law could be set which requires all states to accept same sex marriage.

basically, under the guise of fear of same sex couples, you are asking the Federal Government to get into the marriage business. bad idea. keeping the Federal Government out of the marriage business would be a good thing, IMO.
[/quote]
This is what I was thinking too. Thanks.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='MaterMisericordiae' timestamp='1314819395' post='2298197']
It seems more and more states are allowing same-sex unions these days...
[/quote]

This is actually not true. Only Massachusetts (due to their Supreme Court), Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and now New York allow same sex marriages through either law or Judicial rulings in discrimination law suits. However, 28 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. Even California recently had a statewide vote on the issue and actually amended their State Constitution to protect gay marriage. However, the passed amendment is currently in the court system to determine wether the amendment passed by the people is indeed Constitutional. It seems that most states are in fact passing laws that limit the definition of marriage to the traditional definition. In fact, such laws were even challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court in 1972 (Baker v. Nelson). The case was dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question" and never even heard. This may establish a precedent for the Supreme Court.

[Lil Red]

again, why isn't Santorum an option?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1314852778' post='2298510']
again, why isn't Santorum an option?
[/quote]

For better or worse it seems that Santorum gets lumped in with the other Republicans as just another flavor of the establishment. His views on issues that differ from other republicans seems rather a matter of taste and preference than an actual difference of opinion based on a differing philosophic understanding of the nature of government. People seem to be fed up with the economic and foreign policy understandings that the Republicans have been revealed, through their own actions, to have held. In general, we want a different understanding/opinion not just a different flavor. For better or worse, it seems Santorum gets lumped in as a flavor while Ron Paul is viewed as actually having a difference of opinion/view. I think this accounts for much of the push behind Ron Paul and a lack of push behind Santorum.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1314855413' post='2298516']

For better or worse it seems that Santorum gets lumped in with the other Republicans as just another flavor of the establishment. His views on issues that differ from other republicans seems rather a matter of taste and preference than an actual difference of opinion based on a differing philosophic understanding of the nature of government. People seem to be fed up with the economic and foreign policy understandings that the Republicans have been revealed, through their own actions, to have held. In general, we want a different understanding/opinion not just a different flavor. For better or worse, it seems Santorum gets lumped in as a flavor while Ron Paul is viewed as actually having a difference of opinion/view. I think this accounts for much of the push behind Ron Paul and a lack of push behind Santorum.
[/quote]
Interesting.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314819723' post='2298199']
I really don't know much about it, but that's funny because I have the opposite fear; namely, that a federal law would impose gay marriage on all the states. I think even favorable federal legislation could be a bad precedent. Either way, I don't see how this makes Paul a non-option for Catholics. He's not implicated in a pro-gay marriage agenda and the impact that his presidency would have on that agenda is unclear, but not likely favorable imo.
[/quote]
[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314827970' post='2298308']
if we make a federal law that makes same-sex marriage illegal, that would set a precedent for the federal government defining marriage (which, to my knowledge, it does not; marriage is currently a state thing). with that precedent, a law could be set which requires all states to accept same sex marriage.

basically, under the guise of fear of same sex couples, you are asking the Federal Government to get into the marriage business. bad idea. keeping the Federal Government out of the marriage business would be a good thing, IMO.
[/quote]

Just as an aside to the states-rights gay-marriage question - there is a Federal issue involved. The Supreme Court has not made a definitive ruling on the issue, but there is some argument that the full faith and credit clause would require recognition across the states(of course there is arguments against that as well). There are certainly federal constitutional aspects to that question. Depending on how the Court's interpret this, this may be an issue for the federal government.

[Mr.Cat]

Legally under the 11th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution the exclusion and discrimination to the state institution of marriage could mean any kind of ban on homosexual marriages or unions may be overturned, even if those definitions or restrictions are in the respective state constitutions.

The 11th amendment reads: "[i]The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or [u]equity[/u], commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.[/i]" Which was intended and is interpreted by the Supreme Court to give the courts power to hear cases in any matters of law or equality, even if it is of citizens suing their own state as Hans v. Louisiana (1980) shows.

The 11th amendment reads: "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall [u]abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens[/u] of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [u]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/u]. ..." This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to rule barring of blacks from juries, limiting of Chinese business, segregation under separate but equal, discrimination to minorities and disenfranchised groups, and unfair apportionment of representation to name a few.

Defining or restricting the state institution of marriage from united states citizens because of homosexuality, something the courts don't consider a choice and do recognize as a disenfranchised minority, where in some places states attempt to offer similar institutions such as "civil unions" almost like the "separate but equal doctrine" may likely make applicable provisions to state constitutions and laws unconstitutional. However, there hasn't been a case in the courts about this till recently, the advent of the California constitutional ban/definition... In just following the case law, it has a probability of winning.

As a liberal libertarian, I see no reason for the state to have an institution of marriage, and little reason for the state to be involved in marriage. This is a position that Catholics should feel comfortable with since centuries ago the civil authority remained absent from marriage, when Italy began enacting laws regarding marriage the Church became a strong opponent calling it grave matter to go to the state for marriage and an automatically excommunicatable offense.

[Aloysius]

there is not a restriction on offering marriage based upon homosexual orientation; marriage is simply offered between any man and any woman. the man can be a homosexual and the woman can be a lesbian

that may seem silly but I think it does illustrate a fundamental difference between the idea of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman and the various discrimination based cases you cited. changing the legal definition of marriage is an entirely different thing, no matter how much people might try to twist the terminology to make it seem like a civil rights movement.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314885349' post='2298610']there is not a restriction on offering marriage based upon homosexual orientation; marriage is simply offered between any man and any woman. the man can be a homosexual and the woman can be a lesbian [/quote]At one time states defined marriage as between people of the same race, it was likewise ruled unconstitutional in the same fashion. Legally speaking the same arguments used to defend segregation in state marriage is very similar to discrimination against homosexuals in state marriage. [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314885349' post='2298610']that may seem silly but I think it does illustrate a fundamental difference between the idea of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman and the various discrimination based cases you cited. changing the legal definition of marriage is an entirely different thing, no matter how much people might try to twist the terminology to make it seem like a civil rights movement.[/quote]The state is secular as is its institution of marriage, the precedent to define it in such strict terms are chiefly religious... which automatically disqualifies it from consideration.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Papist]

But the state does impose restrictions. e.g. I can't marry my sister or my cocker spaniel. But I am sure there will be a push to remove those restrictions someday.

Two brother's are homosexuals and they want to get married to each other. They can't. Why is it discrimination for them being homosexuals and not for being brothers? Why is it against their human rights for them being homosexuals and not for being brothers?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314886962' post='2298617']But the state does impose restrictions. e.g. I can't marry my sister or my cocker spaniel. But I am sure there will be a push to remove those restrictions someday.

Two brother's are homosexuals and they want to get married to each other. They can't. Why is it discrimination for them being homosexuals and not for being brothers? Why is it against their human rights for them being homosexuals and not for being brothers?[/quote]Is there a disenfranchised minority being discriminated against for chiefly religious reasons from accessing a state institution?

But not all states in the union prohibit marriage of kin, for example:

[img]http://snodgrassreunion.com/images/cousinMarrMap.jpg[/img]

But in the prohibiting of marriage between kin, what recognizable disenfranchised minority can you find? None.

Although I suspect you may be intentionally obtuse about this... This is NOT "Christian" marriage we are discussing. It's the State's institution of marriage, which is secular. So if you want to continue offering a secular institution of marriage by the state, you have to follow the state's secular rulebook.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314887585' post='2298620']
Is there a disenfranchised minority being discriminated against for chiefly religious reasons from accessing a state institution?

But not all states in the union prohibit marriage of kin, for example:



But in the prohibiting of marriage between kin, what recognizable disenfranchised minority can you find? None.

Although I suspect you may be intentionally obtuse about this... This is NOT "Christian" marriage we are discussing. It's the State's institution of marriage, which is secular. So if you want to continue offering a secular institution of marriage by the state, you have to follow the state's secular rulebook.
[/quote]
That is where I think this all breaks down. There are two polar opposite world views defining marriage. One the Christian definition, which has been the standard since the beginning, which God is a required component. Then there is the secular definition, which God is optional or absent. So, when leaving God out any two material objects can get married w/o restrictions. Marriage is relative to the two[or more, let's not restrict] that want to 'unite'. Christians are arguing that making such modifications in fact disqualifies it from being a marriage.

Bottom-line is the argument is comparing apples with oranges.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314889411' post='2298631']That is where I think this all breaks down. There are two polar opposite world views defining marriage. One the Christian definition, which has been the standard since the beginning, which God is a required component. Then there is the secular definition, which God is optional or absent. So, when leaving God out any two material objects can get married w/o restrictions. Marriage is relative to the two[or more, let's not restrict] that want to 'unite'. Christians are arguing that making such modifications in fact disqualifies it from being a marriage.

Bottom-line is the argument is comparing apples with oranges.[/quote]Technically marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity, it existed in pagan cultures, and it existed in secular cultures. For Christians to try to lay claim to marriage is absurd, since without Christianity, we would still have marriages. Christianity is not a necessary component.

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314889927' post='2298635']
Technically marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity, it existed in pagan cultures, and it existed in secular cultures. For Christians to try to lay claim to marriage is absurd, since without Christianity, we would still have marriages. Christianity is not a necessary component.
[/quote]
Marriage did exist prior to Christianity. Old Testament reveals that. I am sure male/female relationships existed prior to that, but I would hesitate to say that it qualifies as marriage as it is traditionally defined.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1314593143' post='2296755']

off topic:: i was under the impression that this vaccine was against HPV (an STD) and had bad side effects..
[/quote]
[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1314601039' post='2296803']
Yes, the vaccine is for the most common strains of HPV. Most cervical cancer is caused by HPV, thus why it's marketed as a vaccine for cervical cancer, though it's somewhat misleading. However, following Church teaching on sexual morality will also keep you from HPV, without all the side effects that have been documented with Gardasil.
[/quote]

*off topic*

The side effects of the HPV vaccine are no worse than the side effects of any other vaccine. In a perfect world there may not be a need for an HPV vaccine, but in our world there is. Following Church teaching on sexual morality will NOT keep you from HPV unless everyone you know has also been following Church teaching on sexual morality and everyone they know has been following Church teaching on sexual morality.