People try to claim....

**Ron Paul things states should be able to take away your rights.**

This is BS, just because someone interprets the law to say that states don't have the same restrictions as the federal government does not mean they advocate or even believe in the regulation of any non-violent, personal behavior.

>... that should ever be expected of government is to protect that liberty. That authority, gained by the explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom.

> Though this imperative is based on a moral premise, the free society requires legal tolerance toward personal moral behavior or habits of others insofar as they are peaceful and do not engage in aggressive force. This leaves all personal decisions relating to personal moral behavior to each individual. It needs a tolerance that is frequently not practiced. That's not to say that freedom is a free-for-all and that we can behave in any matter we want. A free people do not use force to mold personal moral behavior, but a free do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.

> Powers that the government holds should arrive through the consent of the governed. One should never be permitted to assume this arbitrary power over others, not can a majority of the people consent to giving away the liberty of others. If this is allowed, it shatters the notion that a truly free society and limited government are designed to protect the minority and prevent the majority from becoming the dictator by winning elections through majority vote.

-- Ron Paul, Liberty Defined

(there are probably better quotes than this one, but that's one I recently found, feel free to add more)