Blind Man's News

June 15, 2011

Ann Coulter, Ron Paul, and the Government’s Role in Marriage

Ron Paul taking questions in Manchester, NH

Image via Wikipedia

Today on the O’Reilly Factor Ann Coulter made a mistake that shows her bias and lack of concern for the rule of law and the intent of our founding fathers. I have a lot of admiration for Ms. Coulter, but like most conservatives, she is biased, and that blinds her to understanding a simple concept. The Democrats exposed a similar flaw in thinking by passing a law which forces Americans to buy health insurance.

When asked about his position on gay marriage, Ron Paul stated that the government should stay out of the business of marriage. I agree. Ann Coulter does not. I find it interesting that Republicans and conservatives preach limited government, but only when it goes against their beliefs. Isn’t that the same thing they accuse liberals and Democrats of doing? Does a freedom loving people pass laws that deny others the same freedoms they themselves enjoy? Conservatives believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They refuse to allow any other arrangements. This is foremost a Christian concept. Many religions allow men to have multiple wives, but even these religions deny same-sex marriage. In the case of Ann Coulter, she says that marriage leads to all sorts of consequences which government should be involved in. Really?

She mentioned divorce and custody. Excuse me, but please explain how these have anything to do with marriage. From my perspective, divorce is a civil matter handled in civil court by attorneys representing individuals trying to settle the property and custody matters. How, Ms. Coulter, is the government involved in this process? Answer: the government has nothing to do with divorce and custody. These matters are handled locally by courts and litigants, and the government should stay out of it. Why would any person, regardless of belief, think that the government should pass laws that establish what a marriage is or is not? Shouldn’t people be “free” to live in whatever kind of relationship the individuals desire without our government telling them what they can and can’t do? My answer: Absolutely.

Ann Coulter is a conservative. She sees the world through conservative eyes, which puts her bias onto all her views. She is quick to condemn liberals for doing the same thing. Ron Paul on the other hand is a libertarian. His philosophy is that the government has little responsibility according to the constitution and that the people retain all the power. This does not mean that Ann Coulter has the right to assemble her conservative base and pass laws to define what marriage is any more than the liberals have the right to pass laws giving gays special rights. In Ron Paul’s view, gays have the same rights as heterosexual people. Why do we need a law passed by the government to grant or deny freedom?

The conservative argument against gay marriage is based on Christian doctrine. Our founding fathers had the common sense to amend the constitution to prohibit our government from passing laws that favor one religion over another. People will argue that marriage has nothing to do with religion. I disagree. The First Agreement clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..” We can get into all sorts of arguments here, but exactly what does “respecting” mean? It simply means that our government cannot impose religious doctrine onto the people. We all have the constitutional right to live free from religious doctrine or submit to the doctrine of our choosing. Don’t you agree , Ms. Coulter?

Now we have to draw the line when the exercise of religion interferes with the rights of others. For example, we can’t have one religion burning the churches of their rivals. These rights are already legislated into our criminal laws. So how does gay marriage fit into this argument? It doesn’t. In no way does a gay marriage interfere with a Christian’s right to exercise the freedom of religion. Unfortunately, denying gays the right to exercise their rights to marry the partner of their choosing is interfering their freedom of religion as well as basic human rights. No religious doctrine should be forced upon Americans by government legislation. This is exactly what happens when our government denies gays the right to marry. As currently defined by conservatives, a marriage is the union between one man and one woman and is a Christian concept which cannot, therefore, be written into any law according to the First Amendment. A marriage is a partnership agreement. It gives each individual certain rights just as any other partnership would. To give some sort of sacred significance to a marriage is imposing religious significance to the union. This is not allowed by our constitution.

Wise up Ms. Coulter. You preach limited government, but only limited by your views, or your conservative bias. Rep. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who truly understands what freedom and the US Constitution mean. Your definition of marriage is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Even a blind man can see bias in both political parties. Why can’t everyone else?


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: