Video: Ron Paul's pie-in-sky plan turns blind eyes to down-to-earth denials

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/06/2011

by Jeremy Hooper

If the matter of getting the government out of marriage came up in a serious way that even a bare majority of Americans wanted to entertain, then we would be willing to have that conversation, so long as it focused on all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. If this was a practical reality that was even close to being on the table, then we'd have no choice but to have this national dialogue.

But that is not the America we live in. Not anywhere remotely close to it. As of now, the American people have considerably little interest or concern in reforming our civil marriage practices in a way that entirely detaches civil government. So when we discuss the lay of the land, as it exists here in these United States of 2011, we all have a responsibility to acknowledge the current civil laws as they stand and ensure that they are inclusive in a way that ensures equal protection and due process under our constitution. And this is true even if we personally hold larger views and goals about marriage and the needed reforms we perceive within.

And that's the fundamental problem we have with the Ron Paul stance:

Let's actually start with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act: Congressman Paul's description is completely lacking on the practical level. In truth, DOMA not only involves "protecting the states," as it were, but also involves limiting those states that do have equal marriage rights from honoring their married same-sex couples in the same way as heterosexual marriages. So while it may be consistent with his larger goal to see benefit in DOMA section 2 (the part that prevents states from having to honor other states' unions), Congressman Paul's lack of acknowledgement for DOMA section 3 (the part that prevents states that currently have equal marriage from receiving the same federal recognition that heterosexual couples currently receive) gets back to his unwillingness to focus on the here and now and instead focus on a theoretical future. In the here and now, there is inequality under the law. A member of Congress (and certainly a President) has to deal with the present bull crap, even if he or she thinks the odor runs deeper.

This site is deeply opposed to DOMA, in full, and is not at all aiming to overhaul the entire civil marriage process as it exists in this country. But even still, we could totally hear what Congressman Paul had to say on this, keeping both an open ear and open mind to his larger visions. Could, that is, if his grand plan would be a little more respectful of down-to-earth realities. A little more concerned with how the real world path to his envisioned Utopia is wrought with patent injustices that must be squared away before taking next steps.

space