"Republican Presidential Candidate" Quote of the Day
Try to guess who said this:
I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] … In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
…
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
…
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
…
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
…
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
Hint: The candidate in question is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.
Libertarians do not invoke history — especially the history of religion — as a justification for anti-gay bigotry or unfair and unequal treatment under law, just as we do not invoke history to defend slavery, coverture, spousal rape, pre-arranged marriages or the divine right of kings.
Libertarians do not pretend that discrimination, the suppression of individual rights or the betrayal of the principles of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are any “better” when they occur at the state level rather than at the federal level. Libertarians understand that “states’ rights” is an insolent fiction: individuals have rights; states have powers — powers that they can and do abuse unless properly checked.
Finally, libertarians do not fear the shibboleth of “activist judges” — sorry, “rogue judges.” No libertarian fears a judge more than a politician (or bureaucrat). No libertarian fears a federal court more than a state legislature (or city council). No libertarian denies the unarguable historical fact that for over two centuries it has been judges, especially federal judges, who have been responsible for — and have generally acted responsibly in — defending individual liberties against oppression at the hands of the rest of government.
A libertarian does not say such things. A libertarian who disbelieves such things does not say them anyway just to gain or keep political office.
Therefore, the candidate who said these things is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.
Answer here.
Similar Posts:
- “Republican Presidential Candidate” Quote of the Day
- “Republican Presidential Candidate” Quote of the Day
- Ron Paul (Possibly) Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage
- Gay Republican (Guest) Quote of the Day
- “States Powers” Quote of the Day
Filed under: Uncategorized
He would've voted for DOMA? Dr. No? I'd already seen past the shiny exterior, but good grief, that's egregious.
Thanks for pointing out Dr. Paul's fraudulent libertarianism. People who want to vote for a libertarian candidate for President will be spoiled for choice in the Libertarian Party this year — all three front-runners for the LP nomination are staunchly pro-gay, and you can read their responses to our surveys on gay issues at the Outright Libertarians blog (http://www.outrightusa.org).
I think political labels are simply part of the problem. A lot of talk about such distinctions from people that treat national politics like a sporting event.
Let's get government back in its constitutional box and reinstate a sound monetary system then, maybe, we can have fun dickering over labels. Hell, let’s get principled, intellectually honest people first and worry about their damn labels later.
I personally gave up trying to define libertarians, but if I had to choose, I'd have to agree with L. Neil Smith’s definition the most:
I have a problem with beltway libertarians in general, but it's silly to adhere to a philosophy of individuality and individual rights while at the same time expecting everyone to apply the principles in the same manner. (Reason, Cato, etc.) Ron Paul, if you will notice isn’t selling himself as a libertarian.
Also, remember Ron Paul's stance on certain bills are based on state's rights and the Constitution. We don't have a libertarian form of government; we never have. But, we'd be a lot better if we restored our Constitutional Republic first as a means of getting there.
My shorts aren’t getting twisted up about it. Honestly, I had already gave up on politics and voting, this is the last hurrah for me, and maybe our country.