Browse By

Beloved Defender of the Constitution Ron Paul Just Voted Against the Constitution Again

On May 9 of 2012, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Amendment 1096 to H.R. 5326, shortly before H.R. 5326 itself passed the House. Amendment 1096, introduced by Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, forbids the President from directing the Department of Justice to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act in court. A vote for House Amendment 1096 is a vote to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act.

The problem is that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Federal courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional. It’s unconstitutional on more than one count.

  1. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” But under DOMA, this clause is directly contradicted, declaring thatNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State…”. This gives same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages are given separate and unequal status. The marriages of different-sex couples must be recognized at the federal level in all 50 states, no matter in what state they were married. The marriages of same-sex couples are denied that recognition. That brings us to…
  2. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has an equal protection clause making it unconstitutional for any state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Under DOMA, Indiana is required to acknowledge the marriage of straight couples in Massachusetts, but is allowed to reject the validity the marriage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts. That is unequal protection under law. I’m not just saying that. Federal Judge Jeffrey White made that ruling in February of this year.

People talk about how much Ron Paul loves the Constitution and supports the Constitution and defends the Constitution. But in supporting the Defense of Marriage Act over and over again, in forbidding the Justice Department to take a stance against the Act, Ron Paul subverts the very same Constitution that he frequently waves in the air and claims to value so deeply.

Mr. Constitution, my foot.

7 thoughts on “Beloved Defender of the Constitution Ron Paul Just Voted Against the Constitution Again”

  1. Bill says:

    Another constitutional issue with Amendment 1096 is that the legislative branch has no constitutional authority to tell the executive branch what to do. 1096 is merely a straw-man.

    Ironic that ‘libertarian’ Paul feels that an individual shouldn’t have the liberty to wed whomever he or she wishes.

    1. Horatio says:

      Yeh. What libertarian really means is no rules for corporations and powerful people, and no refuge for the rest of us.

  2. Tom says:

    And over in “religionland” we have this coming from Iran:

    “Iran claims a recently discovered, centuries old bible will prove once and for all that Islam is the one true religion.” (read the rest)

    So now we can stone people on the streets for bein’ “homos” or women walking without men are “fair game.” Yeah – that’s another “great religion.” Humanity is so messed up.

  3. Jeb says:

    You left off the remaining portion of the Constitutional article cited: Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
    Thus making DOMA Constituitional !

  4. Jim Cook says:

    “The manner in which” … full faith and credit shall be given. If the manner of giving full faith and credit is given actually denies full faith and credit, then it’s not a manner of giving full faith and credit, Jeb, and that means it’s not constitutional.

  5. TJ says:

    I just want to know when I can have multiple wives? ( Yeah, it would be ok to have more than one guywife or girlie guy if that’s what you want).

  6. patrick says:

    He is Mr. Constitution,

    he voted that way because its his belief, he has the right to vote as he want. If he was president there would not be a vote on this issue, it would be up to the states

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!