Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You are totally wrong.
Obviously not, but the State is trying to do just that.
-Who could marry? (In George Washington's time, Virginia) -Any free white over the age of 21 could marry provided they had obtained the lawful license or published banns.
Where were the Banns published? In the church!
-It was illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to marry without consent from a parent or legal guardian.
Well, the Yankees must have changed that. The age of consent had dropped to 16 for the male and 14 for the female by the turn of the century, at least in part of Virginia.
-It was illegal for servants still serving an indenture or apprentices to marry without their master or mistresses permission.
Yep, but that was a contractural obligation outside the purview of the Church. -It was illegal for any white to marry an enslaved or free black.
Right up to and including 1/8 or 1/16th negro, if I recall correctly. But that was an unlikely social occurrence as well at that time.
I would caution that the church is far older than the United States, or even its Colonial existence.
Most churches placed prohibitions on marrying outside the faith, as well. Which, of course, prevented any one living within the good graces of the church from marrying one not so affiliated--which left the heathen out.
To this day, Judaic and Christian church policy remains less permissive than the secular equivalent, and it will likely remain so.
It is the State which will let the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak, both with the Islamic and other religions and the homosexuals as well. Some sects will follow, but they are outside traditional Christian doctrine. Why else would the homosexuals (and Islam, and others) take every opportunity to viciously attack the church and Christians?
I just cannot figure out what you are trying to say, do you want churches defining marriage or common accepted laws from the state?
"[W]hile Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." -- Ron Paul"[I]t (Roe) was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states." -- John McCain
Rand Paul, Fred Thompson, and Sarah Palin all also hold this clearly unconstitutional position.
The United States Constitution:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
By the way, Blackmun, the author of the infamous Roe majority opinion, said in the text of the decision that if the fetus is a person, they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a real sense these pro-choice for states Republican politicians are worse than Blackmun. They admit that the child is a person, and then say that the states have a “right” to allow their brutal destruction.
The MSM has been painting RP as a loon since early 2007 if not a lot longer. The headline “Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll” does not paint Ron Paul or CPAC as loons. The headline says Ron Paul is well liked by conservatives, Ron Paul is doing well. None of these major news sites had to cover the CPAC straw poll, and they didn’t have to put the story on their front page. The MSM is very comfortable with ignoring major Ron Paul news, they did in 2007 with the Tea Party Money Bomb which was a record setting fundraising event, which turned out to have repopularized the term “Tea Party”.
No scripturally based church will.
Let me add that I view Holy Matrimony as a sacrament, and that will never be the province of the state.
The caveat in letting churches decide is that we have such a plethora of oddball denominations and religions which are not part of the Western Cultural tradition now, that what we considered standard at the inception of this nation is no longer standard, and hangs on by a dwindling majority as fewer seem to embrace religious doctrine, thanks to the influence of the Socialists in the State.
If we let the State define marriage, then we run afoul of the popular whim and special interests which would as readily as possible use the fact that Congress is to make no law embracing a particular religion to pursue their own idea of what marriage should be among whom, and at whatever age.
Without the guidance of the Judeo-Christian ethos, there will be no prohibiting either the polygamy of Islam nor the homosexuals nor others from having their way.
At this point, both must be involved, at least to some degree, or there will be no immutable standard by which to draft regulations. That standard comes from religious doctrine, and ultimately, from scripture itself.
“The whole revolution / tea party / constitution / 1776 vibe was repopularized by the Ron Paul campaign / grassroots.”
Well, mebbe from a marketing perspective. The idea of Patriots and Sons and Daughters of Liberty, has been long lived aside from Mr. Paul.
“Once Rand Paul has won the US Senate seat in Kentucky, I expect he’ll become the de facto leader of the Paul faction.
If so, that probably works in Sarah Palin’s favor, since she and Rand Paul are pretty much arm-in-arm, politically. “
Isn’t Rand more of a Conservative, as is Palin, and Ron more of a straight up libertarian?
Fair enough. I was talking mostly about big / mainstream political discourse. The Ron Paul campaign in 2007/2008 was all about Revolutionary War era symbolism. It was distinctive. Typically, Presidential campaigns really don’t get that into that. This was mostly the grass roots as well, as the official Ron Paul campaign had a pretty standard logo with “Hope for America”. Fairly generic stuff.
The Ron Paul campaign on the grass roots level back in 2007 was doing some pretty interesting stuff.
Well, they’re cheering on a good speech/presentation by Beck anyhow...but the straw poll is just weird/distressing...wonder how many get to vote in that??
I just returned from my 8th consecutive CPAC and have said this over and over again on Free Republic:
DO NOT put any stock in that ridiculous CPAC straw poll that they insist on doing year after year! It bugs me so much that the media takes this non-scientific poll so damn seriously.
CPAC has so many wonderful events going on simultaneously, and the majority of attendees who bother to take the significant amount of time out of their day to "vote" in that straw poll are students (usually young guys between the ages of 18-25). And the ones who vote (over and over again) are rabid about their candidate - this year it happened to be Ron Paul.
I see these young guys every year at the straw poll tables... tables monitored by students, btw. These kids start filling out the paper ballots at the beginning of the conference (before they even listen to any speeches), they vote multiple times and stuff the stupid cardboard boxes with their ballots. It's kind of like us "FReeping" a poll, to be honest.
And then the media goes crazy proclaiming "Conservatives pick Ron Paul as their favorite candidate for 2012! Wow!"
I hate that dumbass CPAC straw poll. I don't have any "clout" with the CPAC honchos, but my husband and I are going to write and request that they stop running this straw poll every year. This thing totally misrepresents the majority of attendees at the conference.
CPAC had over 10,000 attendees this year, and about 2,395 of them voted in the straw poll. 52% were male, and in the 18-25 age bracket. Or so the poll said... who knows if these were even honest answers?
BTW, just before Glenn Beck's closing keynote speech, the pollster - Tony Fabrizio - read the Ron Paul result, and the crowd of 10,000 loudly BOOed, and for a significant time. I was one of 'em! Over in a far corner, there were a few wimpy cheers in the student section. Yeah, you guessed it - the Paulestinians.
You can find the results of this silly poll here if you're interested:
See it any way you wish. The MSM is defining Conservatism for you.
CPAC had over 10,000 attendees this year, and about 2,395 of them voted in the straw poll. 52% were male, and in the 18-25 age bracket.
Please see my post 631 for more information...
THANK YOU NUTMEG!
I didn’t know they were allowed to vote multiple times!!!!
I recalled you telling me that most of the adults don’t bother to vote -— too busy attending all the good workshops and visiting radio row, etc. -— but it’s news to me about the multiple voting.
YES, WE HEARD THE BOOS LOUD AND CLEAR WHEN RON PAUL WAS ANNOUNCED THE WINNER!
In fact, FNC replayed the segment more than twice that I saw....LOL.
I’ve got to get to bed and can’t comment further, but I cannot believe all the comments on this thread that “CPAC is a gay RINO-fest” now. Couldn’t be further from the truth from what I witnessed.
This straw poll is total BS. I have no idea why they do this year after year...
Good night, ((( nutmeg ))).
Good night, (((FRiend)))... :o)
LOL, I still don’t get your point, do you want some particular church to define marriage and do away with the voters definition?
Is it your church that you want to define it for everyone?
I have no interest in him running
He is 74
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.