Your post reeks of pseudo-intellectualism for the sole reason that you are skeptical because of the age of the Constitution. Suggestion: why don’t you goddamn READ THE THING and tell me what’s wrong with it specifically? Otherwise your argument holds absolutely no basis. Redundant skepticism at its finest.

The Constitution is a great doctrine because it protects FUNDAMENTAL rights. Rights that are timeless to freedom and humanity. While many clauses have been removed by tacked on Amendments, there are still a few problems with it today, yeah. Article 1 sections 8-10 have a few clauses I don’t like (the whole thing about post offices and roads and some bits on taxation, mainly). But really, ignore that and it’s a really great foundation for our really great government. You are being nothing but a skeptic for something that is clearly under your nose. Why don’t you go read the damn thing and tell me what’s specifically wrong with it instead of being skeptical in both this post and that other you linked to? What are these pragmatic whatevers you rant on about specifically?

Oh, and something really stuck out on that rant you linked to:

“If no legal document confers a right (e.g. to smoke) then no such right exists.”

Thank God you’re not a lawyer, because someone could merely whisper, “Amendment IX,” and you’d be begging for mercy.

Maybe I should start a blog called The War On Bullshit. I’ll start by refuting what you say about the Constitution.

–

“I argued that this was no longer true, since the US has such military dominance. [...] The question is, do you think that a bunch of rednecks with semis could orchestrate an armed revolt against a leader who controls the military? You know, those guys with the tanks and the F15s and such? You have got to be kidding.”

Perhaps because of gun restrictions this would be true, and–holy shit–that’s exactly what he’s against! I can’t own an automatic gun or guns many would classify as “assault rifles” (the term is vague and was coined for the mass public, it really doesn’t describe any specific guns and has no true definition. It’s like describing a site as a Web 2.0 site or music as Indie). Maybe if I had the right to own a tank (if I actually had a place to put it!), that would help.

Getting rid of guns is a slippery slope to a police state. Not to say that the government gets rid of our guns to get more control. No. That’s just a paranoid thing to say. Total gun abolition has been done in “good faith” in England and Australia (I quote that because I question the validity of gun abolition laws being good faith when there’s a lot of support that says completely disarming the people causes more crime and problems. Approaching an issue single-minded isn’t in such good faith because it is intellectual dishonesty).

Enough of my bantering. I’d suggest reading this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121979.html

–

“In a comment on the last post, Jordon pointed out that “Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is ‘an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.’” That sounds pretty ant-gay to me…”

I don’t agree with how he views on the laws concerning gay marriage, but he’s not really that anti-gay. See, Ron Paul is all about localized power. Ron Paul would rather have states define marriage. Yeah, he’s said that, Google it or something >__>;. He’s not anti-gay at all, he’s just pro-let-states-make-the-law. He sticks to that principle above (almost?) all others.

Related: he’s somewhat against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell when homosexuality becomes disruptive, but he applies that same “disruptive” principle to heterosexuality. Paul is somewhat-arguably if not lucidly about as anti-gay as Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage. Not sure if you support Obama or not (hey, he’s really not…. err, well, he’s certainly much better than all of the other front runners), but if you do, I just thought I’d bring that to mind.

–

Paul definitely isn’t the perfect candidate even to me. But out of what we have, he’s the most libertarian and consistent of all of them.

Theres a difference between explosives and AK’s and your .22 semi

Totally right. I know that was not the overall point of your post but just want to touch on that. Isin’t there supposed to be a SEPERATION of church and state? In a million years the government should not be able to decide upon that kind of thing.

I happan to know that the rabbi at my local temple (who is a very liberal guy BTW) would never marry two men and call it a marriage in the eyes of god. That is his perogative, part of being a priest/rabbi whatever is that they all interperet the word of god differently so different guys have different rules.

All those tanks and F15s are sure doing a heck of a job in Iraq right?

“Benefit” singular? No way. There’s a lot more riding on the marriage question than a federal tax break. Read this page from Nolo.com summarizing the benefits accorded to married couples by federal and state governments for a better idea of the practical issues at hand: http://tinyurl.com/cud2h (for comment convenience; long URL).

Individual state benefits vary depending on the state, but there are over a thousand legal and practical benefits tied to legal marriage. Some but not all of these shortcuts and privileges can be achieved with a good lawyer and a lot of paperwork; others are exclusively reserved to legally married opposite-sex partners.

This is not even to touch on the social impact that marriage has.

If priests, ministers, and/or rabbis, etc, don’t want to spiritually bind a same-sex couple, they shouldn’t be obligated to, of course — the solution is to divorce the legal benefits from the spiritual significance. Sign the marriage license at City Hall to get admittance to your partner’s hospital room, adopt, direct funeral arrangements, inherit, etc; get a religious ceremony to swear your undying love to your partner in the eyes of Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

That way everybody wins. Atheists don’t have to subscribe to the religious concept, gay people aren’t second-class citizens, and fundamentalists can refuse to spiritually join anyone they don’t like. Everybody gets a legal union with a signature, and those who want spiritual significance can “voluntarily associate” themselves with it.

As for this article,
someone needs to declare war on it because it is rife with bullshit. The author is wrong on the very basics of what Ron Paul supports. When correct on that, the author fails to understand Paul’s line of though anyway, apparently lacking the historic and cultural perspective to be able to understand the subject. Reasoning against the author’s sophomoric arguments against “Ron Paul’s positions” would be a waste of time.

-Jonathan Clark

He opposes the redefinition of marriage being something other than between man and wife, but in my opinion, that is a religious thing.

Take my old republican grandfather for instance. He too thinks that two men who want marry should have all of the civil benefits of a legal marriage, but because of religious reasons, does not believe that they can be actually called “Married.”

I think this is more or less where ron paul stands.