Ron Paul is wrong on marriage. His idea that government should get completely out of the marriage business is absurd. But fortunately, he is running for chief executive of the federal government. It would probably be a good thing for the federal government to get completely out of the marriage business. So I have no problem.
Jeff, I'm glad you see- as the Iowa Supreme Court and Ron Paul do not- that marriage is more than a private contractual arrangement between individuals. It is the foundational institution of human society, predating even government.
I would argue that the preamble to the Federal constitution creates a scenario in which Federal intervention to save marriage even at the state level would be not only proper, but under certain conditions mandatory. I agree that until the general welfare is threatened by state legislation (or more likely, judicial enactments) the matter should be dealt with on the state level.
Interestingly, you seem to stand with regard to Paul's position on marriage the same place I stand with regard to Mitt Romney and Romneycare: were our respective candidates running for governor, it would be a more legitimate issue. I do think, though, that his position on marriage does betray a very basic flaw in Dr. Paul's philosphy of government.
Comments
I would argue that the preamble to the Federal constitution creates a scenario in which Federal intervention to save marriage even at the state level would be not only proper, but under certain conditions mandatory. I agree that until the general welfare is threatened by state legislation (or more likely, judicial enactments) the matter should be dealt with on the state level.
Interestingly, you seem to stand with regard to Paul's position on marriage the same place I stand with regard to Mitt Romney and Romneycare: were our respective candidates running for governor, it would be a more legitimate issue. I do think, though, that his position on marriage does betray a very basic flaw in Dr. Paul's philosphy of government.