My Correspondence With Ron Paul About Gay Rights
My initial contact:
Dear Ron Paul,
As a gay man, I would really like to see you take a strong stance on gay rights as you have done with the war and immigration. I read that you are a libertarian and when I googled that term this is what I found:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty.
How can you NOT support gay rights and equality if you truly believe the above statement?
Sincerely,
Brian
___________________________________________
Response from campaign:
Dr. Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, one of only a few Republicans to do so.
Thanks for contacting us,
[name removed]
Ron Paul 2008
___________________________________________
My response:
According to the research that I have done, Dr. Paul voted against the FMA only because he believes that federal law should not trump state law, not because he believes in protecting or expanding gay rights.
Sincerely,
Brian
I have not received a reply back from the Dr. Paul’s campaign. Here is an image of the email correspondence with the last names blocked out.
As an old Libertarian I can tell you that libertarians as a group generally do not think the government should get involved with any facet of one’s personal lives. We believe that what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. For the most part a Libertarian is going to take the stance that less government is better. Therefore, many Libertarians will tell you that the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Why should I have to ask permission from the state to be married? Isn’t that what a marriage license is in general, the state granting you permission to get married? Marriage should be between two people and maybe their families and churches, should those two people want to include those other entities. We need less government involvement in all aspects of our lives. Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, not special rights. Do away with all marriage licenses and let people decide for themselves under which auspices they want to take vows for each other.
I cannot speak for Ron Paul, but I did hear him speak about rights at a fund-raiser. He said that he doesn’t believe in “group rights” or rights of groups; however, he does believe in the rights of individuals. When you start trying to assign rights to groups, you tend to favor one group over another. First of all, you cannot assign rights, and government cannot give rights to people, people are born with rights(the government is supposed to protect those rights.) Gay people are individuals, just as black people are individuals, and little people are individuals. What we need in this country, and this is what Paul advocates, is a government that respects and protects the rights of all individuals. According to the Constitution(which is a document that attempts to bind the federal government to a set of powers), powers that aren’t granted to the federal government are to be retained for the States or the people of the States. It is no business of the federal government what two consenting adults want to do with their lives, sadly though, the federal government assumes responsibility to make laws prohibiting various interactions between consenting adults. What we need is a Congress and President that understands the Constitution and the powers delegated to them. I believe(and you can look at Ron’s voting record) that Dr. Paul understands the role of the federal government.
That’s an unfortunate and stupid response from that particular campaign aide that you received Brian. I am sure it was carelessness not flippancy or intended disrespect.
Matt and Johnathon have the right of it though and explain it well. The increasing size and unconstitutional power of the federal government has helped to split up Americans under various labels and in diverse political blocks vying for control over the political system. A divide and conquer approach, if you will, for those who seek to gain political power. It works very well for them.
I despise identity politics. It strips away individuality and requires you to find a place in the political spectrum that may or may not fit your values.
If we, as Americans, truly defend and uphold the sanctity of individual rights than race, sexual orientation, religion and cultural differences will not be the dividing line in our politics.
The right of free association and mutual respect for the rights of others are fundamental. For those that disagree or have issue with others, they must learn that the true price of liberty is allowing others to be free as well.
Discrimination and bias will still exist in some segments of our population, but it will be transparent and not institutionalized and camouflaged under the guise of law.
Initiating aggression against others will not be tolerated in a free society.
Matt, Jonathan, & Ray,
You all raise excellent points and have very thoughtful, fair-minded responses. Too bad most Americans aren’t like you guys.
I also want to clarify my term “gay rights”. I don’t expect more rights than other Americans… just the same ones. Right now gays are still discriminated against in many areas of the law and in our lives, so when I asked Ron to stand up for “gay rights”, that’s what I meant.
Dear Brian,
I understand where your comming from. The only problem is if we don’t have freedom none of these issues will be issues. We will be forced to comply one way or the other without our basic rights.
I personaly feel that gay people should be able to have the rights of any other person in the country. I also feel that it is not the job of the federal government to impose on us any set of values.
Peace and love! Ron Paul 2008!
Darush
I echo everything Matt says. On a side note, I cannot understand how people discriminate against gays. Just plain and simple don’t get it.
Ron Paul’s approach seems to be to leave the matter of marriage to the states. He thinks that states should be able to recognize same-sex marriages, but he does not want the federal government to tell states that they must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
This might fall short of what you want, but I think it’s very reasonable. He is also likely to support giving to all people things that are currently seen as privileges of officially recognized marriage, but I don’t have any good sources for that.
Ron Paul is the Howard Dean of 2008 and will soon be irrelevant. Don’t fret it too much, it’s unlikely that RP will be making any decisions from the oval office.
Buzzdroid, go troll somewhere else.
Brian, I hope you can find it resonable to support Dr. Paul. He is not perfect, but he will bring about the kind of change we need in gov’t.
Imagine the progress we will make on individual liberties if the “debate” is between Libertarians and anti-war Democrats. I would love to see that day, but with each election, it seems less likely to ever happen. This is our chance.
Brian, I agree that wasn’t a very good response, please understand however that their campaign office has been working overtime dealing with a flood of calls and e-mails (nearly all supportive) due to people learning about Dr. Paul’s wonderful position of freedom that unites us all.
Win or lose for Dr. Paul (and we sure are doing everything for him to win), many of his supporters will still be fighting for your rights.
Take care,
Bryan
Hi, everyone,
I found a site with lots of information on Dr. Paul’s voting records. Even though he voted against the FMA, he did vote to ban gay adoptions in DC.
Anyone have any background information on that? Did it have anything to do with his libertarian viewpoints, such as protecting state rights over federal?
I’ve sent Ron Paul 2008 HQ an email regarding this.
Here’s where I’ve posted about it:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Correspondence_With_Ron_Paul_About_Gay_Rights
-Brewksie
Brewskie,
Thanks for your support. I didn’t expect to get this type of reaction to my post, but I do appreciate the efforts of you and others to get him to address this important issue.
You might want to take a look at this for more on ron paul and gay rights
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=512&Itemid=44
“For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime.”
The case Ron Paul is referring to involved Repent America people at a “National Coming Out Day” which can be read about here
http://www.counterbias.com/438.html
Ron Paul’s real position on gay marriage. This is why his campaign did its best to cloud the issue.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree.
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:”
Sure puts a whole different take on it
Space Ramblings,
I wouldn’t exactly describe people screaming for the deaths of homosexuals to be “peaceful religious demonstrators”, but I do understand that Ron’s view is that each state is responsible for dictating hate crimes. I’m just not sure that I agree with him.
Thanks for the comment and the links.
Brian
Spacecadet there is a major shill who only posts anti-Paul lies and smears all over the place. His words are worthless. Read up on Paul at his own sites and make your own mind up. Guys like this spacemoron has even been known to stoop as low as to intimate that Paul is a pedophile. They have skank written all over them.
At no point did I call Ron Paul a pedophile. I pointed out that Ron Paul’s whitewashing of David Koresh amounted to the whitewashing of a pedophile
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/06/04/ron-paul-defender-of-david-koresh/
Did you see the debate tonight? He gave an excellent answer on how there should be no such thing as “gay rights” or “minority rights” but simply individual rights.
While he personally might be opposed to gay marriage, he has not ever legislated against it. I read a speech he gave in which he said a best case scenario is that government gets out of marriage entirely, and out of the moral legislation business, because people individually have the right to decide their own morality.
Seriously, he is the best candidate for freedom of ALL people.
And personally, I’m very impressed you got a reply from his campaign; I’ve emailed them a few times and never gotten a response.
“he did vote to ban gay adoptions in DC”
The On the Issues site does say that, but it’s misleading. He voted for a bill that was unrelated to gay adoption, and there was a tiny amendment that could be construed as having to do with gay adoption, and in the end, it was even taken out of the bill.
Gloria,
While I understand Ron’s view on personal liberties, I can’t help but wonder what type of SC judges he would appoint if elected president. He seems to believe that they are too powerful, yet he might be required to choose nominees for the bench. What might those nominees look like in terms of liberal/conservative? I would think the latter.
Actually Ron Paul has said that he would have legislated against gay marriage, had he been in the Texas Legislature.
A lot of the “there should be no minority rights” routine is used often enough by bigots looking for public office to dodge dealing with their real dislike of minorities.
“How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual
deviance! It’s officials could have had their own float in the
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade.” Ron Paul – June 93
“How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual
deviance! It’s officials could have had their own float in the
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade.” Ron Paul – June 93
OUCH! 8-O
I appreciate the postings as I was searching for Ron Paul’s actual stance on gay or equal individual rights and have found relatively little from any official sources. I have been hearing good things coming from him lately and I did want to find the real person behind the campaign machine.
It is rather clear to me that he is masking and avoiding his beliefs behind a shield of less federal government and more states rights.
If he is so constitutional minded how does he reconcile full faith and credit with what he preaches as States individual rights. Would not this create further division within the country far past the current highly divisive so called restrictive two party system and create 50 more divisions. Space Rambler touched on this issue!
Regardless, as President your power base is immense when it comes to the molding of future laws on appointments and nominations to key posts including the supreme court. His personal beliefs play a huge roll in this and I currently do not see a “Straight Shooter” in Ron Paul on this equal rights issue.
I have more respect and honestly would rather have a candidate state that he is against me (Romney) than one who appears to side step the issue.
Josh
Josh,
I agree completely with your entire comment. It’s obvious that Ron Paul has strong personal feelings on the homosexual issue and those feelings would eventually come into play were he elected president.
“I have more respect and honestly would rather have a candidate state that he is against me (Romney) than one who appears to side step the issue.”
Exactly.
Thanks for commenting.
“How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual
deviance! It’s officials could have had their own float in the
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade.” Ron Paul – June 93
Those statements are from a newsletter that was sent out under his name, but he has said that they did not represent his views. See his Wikipedia article, for example.
Did you see the debate the other night?
He said that rights are not given to groups, but given to individuals. He believes that laws should be made by states, not the federal government, and unlike other politicians who make exceptions for laws which are politically popular, he NEVER goes against his principles even when he wants to. He has said that sometimes he really wants to vote for bills but he just can’t because they’re unconstitutional and he swore to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn into office.
He believes in equal rights for all and states’ rights to decide their own laws. States could decide to have gay marriage if they wanted, or they could decide against gay marriage. FYI: The “full faith and credit” clause has been ruled by the Supreme Court to not apply to social mores such as marriage. As an example, no other states had to accept polygamy when Utah recognized it. The Congressional bill simply reaffirmed this Supreme Court ruling by declaring that states did not have to recognize other states’ marriage clauses if they chose not to do so. That is NOT going against gay rights.
It is pretty clear that he is NOT against gay people, although he is personally against gay marriage, he believes states should decide. He did NOT vote for the FMA even though I’m sure pressure was high on Republicans to do so. He does NOT vote for bills he believes violate the Constitution in any way. The campaign worker is NOT him, and I believe he would be very amenable to talking with you if you saw him in person.
I just think that you’re saying that he hates gay people or something, but he does not hate gay people. He believes in individual liberty for everyone, including all gay people, and for that he has stood up for all Americans– lower taxes, ability to decide what to spend our own money on, having the government stay out of our business, choosing what we can do in our own free time– he is for gay rights as much as anyone because he would allow gay people to be free from government interference and control. He is for freedom for all, his message is universal, and he is for personal liberty and defending the Constitution.
Hi, Gloria.
I don’t believe that Ron Paul hates gays, I just think that the answer from his campaign was insufficient. I also think that his personal beliefs on homosexuality do matter, whether or not he wants to hide behind some blanket statement about being for “individual rights”.
I simply don’t understand how a person can support personal freedom and still believe that homosexuals should not have the right to marry their partners.
Thanks for commenting.
Hi! I’m 100% behind Ron Paul and I’m a queer american. It’s not even worth discussing if Ron Paul is for gay rights because he is for HUMAN rights. This encompasses all people. At the last GOP debate, Ron Paul was asked if he agreed with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and this is what he said:
“I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality. It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”
I would say that Ron Paul hit the nail on the head more than any Republican or Democrat has done.
Kelly,
I disagree. He claims to support individual rights, but most people agree that he is personally opposed to homosexual marriage and adoption. That’s hypocritical in my view.
It’s not about providing rights to a group of people, it’s about giving us the same rights as other Americans. If he doesn’t personally support that, then why support him? It would seem that his personal and political views are not cohesive.
Also, while I agree with the jest of his answer to the DADT policy, he starts by saying that it is a “decent policy”. Clearly, he thinks it works, which is beyond absurd.
I started investigating Ron Paul a few weeks ago around the same time I wrote my original email. I had an open mind and wanted to see if he was someone that I could support. Most of what I have discovered about his politics has not impressed me.
Let’s put it another way. Instead of liking or disliking gays, let’s say chocolate candy. Let’s say Ron doesn’t like chocolate, but he doesn’t want his view to be enforced though the government. Individual people should keep that right to choose for themselves.
Right to marry? From whom? The government? Ron believes marraige shouldn’t be from the government at all, but local churches and individuals. Government needs to butt out of that issue and hand it back to the people (individual rights).
“The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.
Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html
Danny,
Then my next question would be this – Do you actually believe that Ron Paul would do anything if elected president to take government out of marriage? Would Ron Paul do anything to take government out of reproductive rights? Would Ron Paul do anything to restrict the power of the Supreme Court?
I think we could easily assume that the answer to all of those questions is “no”. Believing anything different would be dreaming. I don’t even think the President has the power to do any of those things.
Thanks for your comment!
Bottom line. Ron Paul is a Conservative Christian and a Libertarian. These two things are contradictions in terms which Ron Paul’s campaign deals with by conveniently ignoring the former.
Dismantling all levels of government regulation might provide equal rights. Dismantling Federal government in favor of State government will badly harm minorities who will find themselves disadvantaged in conservative states. Ron Paul knows this and he’s written articles which demonstrate that he’s counting on the triumph of “traditional values” in the culture wars.
The Ron Paul supporters who keep repeating that Ron Paul is great for everyone because he’s against government are ignoring the fact that Ron Paul does indeed have plans to dismantle one level of government but not another and that will directly affect tens of millions of Americans.
Applying the Ron Paul formula of dismantling Federal powers while empowering state control would have ensured that slavery never ended.
Well, look at what President Bush has been doing. He seems to have a lot of power to do pretty much anything he wants. Why then are all the other candidates promoting all these “good” things if they can’t do anything at all?
He may even get some dictator like powers if a disaster happens.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
Giving power to states and it’s people is the what the founders and the constitution intended to do.
Danny,
Bush has changed policy in the country through the use of intimidation, deceit, and propaganda. Is that what you are suggesting that Ron Paul should do to enact his views if elected? And surely you don’t think that having dictator-style powers would be in the best interest of the country.
I understand that the Constitution is being misused, but I don’t think that he or any other president would have the power to strip the federal government of its power and return it to the states. I’m not even sure that would be a good idea, as pointed out by Space Ramblings – slavery would still exist in some parts of the country and homosexuals would never be able to marry in my state.
Another thing I don’t understand about the libertarian viewpoint of Dr. Paul – why is he so vehement about personal liberties while supporting the power of individual states at the same time? It seems contradictory. Those state laws are sometimes more restrictive of individual rights than federal law.
Given that in the name of his conservative Christian beliefs Ron Paul believes that the states should have the right to completely ban abortion why wouldn’t he believe that the states should have the right to do anything they want in terms of laws against homosexuality? I think it is a safe bet that that is his stand and someone just needs to ask the question in the right way to paint him into that corner.
Good point, Jim.
“Someone just needs to ask the question the right way…”
He is a strong proponent of states rights and a strict constitutionalist, so given the chance I imagine he would “roll back” a lot of federal law regarding civil liberties and put the decisions in the hands of state legislatures. Would be a step backward for many groups and individuals who find themselves in the minority in their particualr state.
JimT
Jim & JimT,
You both raise good points about this guy. Something about his lack of a stance on the issue bothers me, but I find myself going back and forth over how I feel about him as a candidate. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being, because I’m sure that more will be revealed about his personal feelings on other social issues that will be reflective of how he might feel about this one.
I watched the video on YouTube from when he was on The Colbert Report. He’s quite an interesting politician and I agreed with many of the points that he made. I can’t claim that with many other Republicans! 8-)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs
Found this on Wikipedia:
In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill. The amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia. The amendment in question was not present in the final bill.[70] Rep. Paul votes against most federal funding as an unconstitutional use of taxpayer dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
^So his vote for the bill was based on his strict constructionist views that the federal govt had no business funding these things.
He is personally against gay marriage, yes, but he won’t let his personal religious views interfere with the Constitution.
Brian,
I respect that you disagree. But, I disagree with you because you fail to see the fundamental message that Ron Paul is trying to get across to America.
He supports individual rights and, yes, he did say that he is opposed to homosexual marriage and adoption.
I don’t know who you are voting for, but Obama specifically said he is against homosexual marriage. Also, Hillary defended her husband’s “Don’t as don’t tell” policy in a recent debate! She also side-steps the gay-rights question whenever she can, unless she is surrounded by gay people.
You say it’s “about giving us the same rights as other Americans” and I believe that when Ron Paul says that everyone should be treated equally, then that means that gays and straights should be treated equally. As a true Libertarian, Ron Paul should believe that government should not be involved in marriage AT ALL: Gay or straight! Why should the government even have to know who is married. In a truly free country, we would have the separation of marriage and state.
His comment on “don’t ask don’t tell” is not absurd at all! He said that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is decent because, fundamentally, it is. Military authorities should not have the right to ask anyone about their sexual orientation. Period. The real issue, which Ron Paul did not discuss, is whether or not gays should be kicked out of the military for being gay. The answer to that is clearly a “no” and I would be very surprised if Ron Paul disagreed.
I am shocked that more gay people are not “impressed” by Ron Paul, Brian. He stands for individual rights. Isn’t that what Pride is all about?? He stands for eliminating collectivism and racism. Who could possibly be against that? And, more importantly, he is one of the only candidates who vote against the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and the only candidate who has consistently practiced what he preaches.
A Hillary, Guiliani, Obama, McCain or Romney presidency will do NOTHING for gay rights except muddle the issue even more. Ron Paul’s government will slowly change the fundamental way we see government and allow freedom and equality for all people.
I am queer and proud and thrilled to be able to support Ron Paul.
Brian,
I also want to add that I really like your website and I’m glad it exists. I hope my last message wasn’t harsh. I’m just really excited about Ron Paul because there is finally someone running for President who shares my political values.
Peace,
Kelly
As a long-time Libertarian, I think it is important to make one point here:
The only politicians that are not “making it up as they go” are Libertarians. All other politicians are likely to change their stance on any issue based on pressure (or $upport) from special interest groups, other politicians and their more vocal constituents.
Libertarian policies are based on strong principals, areasre unchanging.
If you wanted to summarize the real stance of any Libertarian down to an absolute minimum it would be this:
“The only legitimate functions of government are to protect the governed people from harmful acts commited by each other and to protect the governed people from harmful acts commited by others”
This basically comes down to what we see as the police and the military. And just as we would not condone a police force that executes a pre-emptive stike against someone that MAY commit a crime, we do not condone attacks against foreign governments except in defense of our country.
Everything else is no business of the government.
A Libertarian holding US Federal office would assert that the issue of gay marriage is no business of the federal government and would defer the issue to a more local government (like the state).
A Libertarian holding state office would assert that gay marriage is no concern for the state, so a more local regulation would be applicable.
A Libertarian mayor would state that gay marriage is no business of city government and that this is a matter for individuals to decide.
Any Libertarian will tell you that the term “victimless crime” is an oxymoron–no harm, no crime.
Any Libertarian would tell you that anything that consenting adults do is no business of government.
This includes buying and selling anything, anything they choose to do with their bodies, any at-will agreement.
If you are not hurting anyone, and not hurting their property, there is no problem.
This has brought many years of attacks against Libertarians as being “pro-gay/anti-family” and even pro-drugs and pro-prostitution and many other things.
Basically, a Libertarian in office will always vote “none of our business” when it comes to anything other than defending people from harmful actions against their selves and their property.
Will the gay political establishment endores a Libertarian candidate? Not likely for a long time. Basically, all special interest groups are grooved in to the “get a piece of the pie” mentality brought about by big government. “If the religious right gets money, we want money too, and are willing to fight for it.”
For a Libertarian there is only one special interest group–the individual.
If you want to be the soverign over your own life and truly own your own income an your own property, you are already fundamentally a Libertarian.
If you measure a candidate or a party by their willingness to enforce “special rights for GLBT’s” then you are going to get a very distorted picture of this.
“Rep. Bill Jenkins just voted against federal quotas for hiring gays!” OK. It won’t be long before someone starts trying to pass legislation to force companies to employ a minimum of 9% homosexual individuals. That’s the nature of Affirmative Action–enforce disparities by legal counter-measures.
But really, if you owned a company, would you give the government the power to say who you can and cannot hire? Of course not.
Now does this mean that a company operating under a Libertarian government could say “we don’t hire queers?” Actually yes. How many companies would actually do this though? What would be the response if they did?
Right now, a bigoted company couldn’t say this. Instead, they would simply not hire you by making up some other reasons. Then, they would make sure you never got promoted, or got well paid, or do other things to make you feel unwelcome (while loudly pretending to support a “workplace of diversity.”
In the issue of gay marriage, what is really at stake? Why would someone really want a license from the government making their union official?
That is also none of their business.
There are some infringing laws now that make it seem to be desireable. For example, say a state has a law that says “only family members can visit a hospital patient in intensive are” – If your partner is in the hospital, maybe having a government document showing that you are “family” might let you visit him or her–but it is the underlying law that is stupid.
The HOSPITAL could attempt tp make such a policy, but that could be fought in the marketplace. They may find that their bigoted hospital gets some competition from a facility that cares more about human rights.
Sorry for being long-winded on this. I GUARANTEE that if you study the principles of Libertarianism, you will see that it is in your best interest–gay, straight, transgendered, gender-agnostic, christian, muslim, atheist, rich or poor.
Actually, if you are super-rich as a result of government endowment in any form, you might get ready for a pay cut.
Kelly,
Thank you for your comment and your compliment!
David,
You raise some very good points. I guess my main concern would be turning the individual’s rights back over to individual states. I have to wonder about the state of women’s reproductive rights, gay rights, racial equality, and separation of church and state if that were to happen.
You might be able to remove federal government from our personal lives, but if you are simply turning it over to the states, it seems that there could potentially be less individual rights instead of more.
My state has already outlawed recognition of gay marriage, yet I fully expect the Supreme Court to grant recognition one day.
While I understand the Libertarian point of view (and even agree with it), it seems like the long way around to getting what I want – the same rights shared by straight couples.
Right now, I only have to wait for the SC to take up the case and force the entire country to recognize it (which they’re bound to do, since there is no legal basis to deny it).
If I went the route of putting a Libertarian in office, it would be something like this…
1. Elect Libertarian
2. Wait for him to convince the rest of the federal government to give up most of its power (very unlikely)
3. Turn individual rights over to state control (still no improvement)
4. Wait for my ass-backwards state to either eliminate marriage licenses or to overturn laws that prohibit same-sex marriage (again, very unlikely)
I personally think Ron Paul’s stance on gay marriage is hypocritical. While a Libertarian may believe that marriage shouldn’t be a legal matter and uses that as an excuse to not support gay unions, he has no problem indulging in the rights afforded by his own marriage.
From Wiki:
Congressman Paul is personally opposed to gay marriage, but he asserts that marriage is an individual matter more than a function of the government, and marriage existed before governments did. He says that citizens should not look to the government for moral guidance, because morality is primarily a religious or personal matter. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.
Brian,
I agree with your call on Ron Paul’s hypocracy on the issue: “While (as) a Libertarian (he) may believe that marriage shouldn’t be a legal matter, (he) uses that as an excuse to not support gay unions, he has no problem indulging in the rights afforded by his own marriage.”
You are also right about the timeline and process for change if you go the route of putting a Libertarian in office it will take decades to effect real change; good assessment.
The only hope would be to get the Libertarian message out to the the masses at one time. Not a campaign so much as an infomercial; one of the party’s leaders having a national platform not to run for office, but to explain the group’s principles and beliefs; like buying a 30 minutes or an hour of TV air time to promote their viewpoint.
And then from that they’d need ot have some sort of “mass conversion”, many citizens becoming Libertarian at one time.
That’s the only way I can see the process of change speeding up and the country embracing Libertarian ideology.
In the absence of that, I think you are right: it will take forever for the Federal government to reliquish power over to the states and for the states to give rights back to the individual. You and I will long be gone by the time that happens.
JimT
Well, until this post on Ron Paul, I never knew this much about “Libertarians” and their views, so…now I know.
I know that you think that if he was elected that it would take to long, but really change does not take place all at once. It takes time.
I know this may not make sense but sometimes “if can’t get through the front door, try the one the back (or the side).”
Bare with me… “you” are wanting something that right now is not going to be easy to attain “through the front door” were everyone is watching and waiting to prounce but by entering/exiting out the one less watched, you are able to GET what you want.
Politics is the same. Sometimes “they” know that “the people” won’t go for what they are wanting (to sale), so they gain entrance through a different avenue (door).
You may not want it to be that way, but it may be that it has to be that way and then lead into gradually more acceptance.
(Sorry for my confusing choice of words, another long shift :( )
What I am TRYING to say is that he may be the key to getting what you desire in the long run!
I am a gay male age 40. And I support Ron Paul. As a gay man, I am willing to put aside the “gay agenda”, for if our country becomes a corporate police state, gay rights won’t mean a hill of beans!
Id rather be an un-married free man then a married gay man in a fema camp!
Wake up fellow gays, the globalists are just using our issues to divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book!
Ron Paul’s personal beliefs shouldn’t matter at all. What matters is if he is going to force his beliefs on the rest of the country. Whether or not he is personally against gay marriage, he is not going to give himself to authority to make it illegal, or legal, or whatever. He believes that the government should have the least to do with those issues as possible, and not just gay marriage, but marriage in general. The government doesn’t give people rights, they are born with them.
Again, voting based on someone’s personal beliefs is different than voting on the actions they will take. The difference between Paul and almost every other candidate is that they think that if they have control, they could use it to spread their personal beliefs and enforce them throughout the country.
I have included a link into my perspective of Ron Paul and his stance on gays serving in the military.
I would suggest looking into Mike Gravel’s instead, because even if Ron Paul gets elected, he won’t do too much to make sure that his predecessor won’t be another Bush, because that kind of change is not permissible in his view of the constitution.
Mike Gravel has something called the National Initiative, where the people will work with their government to make laws making their voices more heard. If we had this in place right now the people could make it a crime for Bush to stay in Iraq, and when it comes to policies like gay marriage the people are usually far ahead of their government.
One of the reasons some conservatives are against gay marriage is because the benefits those that are married get. It would cost the government more money…
Every gay who has been removed from the military through this “Decent Policy” was not being “disruptive”, on the Colbert Report he interviewed a discharged translator who said he was outed because he sent a computer message home to his gay lover and it was intercepted by some higher ups.
This policy CREATES the groups that he rails against. It separates gays from straights, therefore him calling it decent is hypocritical.
If you wanna find out about Gravel’s stances look for the article “Why Hillary Scares Me” (linked to in the article I linked).
Brian,
If you’re looking for someone like Ron Paul, but without the religious conservative baggage, you should check out the Libertarian Party’s candidates:
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2007/05/libertarian-nomination-candidate.html
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-phillies-replies-to-our.html
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2007/05/steve-kubbys-contribution-to-outrights.html
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2007/07/libertarian-presidential-nominee-robert.html
And let’s face it — their odds of winning the general election are no worse than Ron Paul’s chance of winning the Republican primary. ;-)
Rob
This discussion seems to have glossed over the federal aspect of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). As a gay man living in Massachusetts, I may marry my boyfriend if I chose. However, I may not file a joint federal tax return; I may not inherit or take part in my spouses federal benefits: Social Security, Medicare, the ability to bring into this country a foreign born spouse, the ability to NOT testify against my spouse in a Federal Court of law.
Ron Paul has defended the DOMA. Perhaps he does want each state to decide for themselves, but there is a real part of the statute that deals with the Federal government and marriage.
If Ron Paul were fair-minded, he would oppose the federal aspect of DOMA; he would have the federal government recognize those marriages that each state recognizes. Instead, he supports DOMA and shows that his Christian values outrank his Libertarian leanings.
I think any right minded person should not/could not support him.
Scott,
You raise some very good points. I’ll be interested to read the responses from some in the Ron Paul camp.
I think people here are confusing federal power (the congress and the president) with the power the supreme court has to protect everyones civil liberties. I dont have a problem with Paul thinking the congress shouldnt intrude on the powers/rights that the states have. My problem with him is he doesnt think the surpeme court should apply the bill of rights to the states either. If it was up to him, each state would be allowed to decide whether homosexuality was illegal or not. He disagreees with Lawrence vs Texas for instance. He thinks laws against gay sex (or any other kind) is ok. And he feels that way about just about evey other right as far as I can tell. Thats what conservatives (federalism, states rights) believe, they think the BORs only applies to the federal government and that the states should have the power to pass whatever laws they want, in accordance with their own state constitutions.
The subject on thread seems to have gotten focused on gays, but thats only one concern. Id worry about free speech, seperation of church state, gun rights, etc…. too (in many states) if Ron Pauls philosophy was implemented. It seems like pre civil war, pre 14th amendment to me. I never understood how you can have inalenable rights, etc… anyhow if it just depends on which state you live. That doesnt make sense to me. Everybody shoud have their basic rights protected no matter what state they live in.
Let’s remember what someone noted earlier…marriage should not a state or federal issue…but a religious issue…so gays need to take it up with their respective religious institutions. Ron Paul doesn’t see gays as a “special” group, and desires equal treatment for all people. Ron Paul may not be perfect concerning our issues, but if we don’t address the larger issues of this country (which Ron Paul adeptly does), then there will be no country left and no hope for America.
Jonsey, I’m not confusing federal power with the supreme court. I don’t disagree with what you said, but it’s a different issue than the one i raised. Regardless of whether you think the federal government should be in the marriage business, it is. And if you have no animus to gay people, you would balk at the federal aspect of DOMA — that the federal government will not recognize a states marriage between two people of the same sex. It isn’t just an academic argument — there are real benefits — social security and medicare being two. Since he supports DOMA, I question his Libertarian leanings. I think his social conservatism is stronger.
gay dood, whether you want marriage to be a state and federal issue or not, it is! my religion recognizes same-sex marriages — i have no problem with the religious aspect. It’s the very real benefits that I’m denied that I’m complaining about. I would ask you this — if someone is so cavalier about denying fairness to gay men and women, are you really ready to trust him on other issues?
Scott: As a gay person, I understand your concern…but I want to throw a few things out there. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to drastically reduce government and get it out of our hair…this will dramatically help all of us…a lot of things will equalize out. We don’t want MORE government ruling our lives…we want less. Just as an aside, the government has been robbing Social Security for a while now…so there may not be anything left in the till anyway…and if he dumps the IRS, we won’t have to worry about tax filing. I understand there are many gay type issues, etc. But the big point I want to make here is…we have a country in crisis…we’re on the verge of financial collapse, our liberties are being ripped out underneath our feet, corruption and deception is at new heights, etc. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that isn’t bought and paid for, has the balls and experience to stand up against the machine (he stood up to Bernake today btw), plus understands the Constitution, and understands that this country is on life-support. The other candidates that you may have in mind may sound ‘pretty,’ for TV, but we’re headed for some very dark times…America needs a good Doctor…STAT. The gay issues will work their way out…let’s save the country first.
Hi!
What an interesting conversation. I like that it is staying so civil.
I am a straight woman with gay and lesbian friend. Non-religious but spiritual.
I have 3 issues that I have been researching on Ron Paul that are kind of hard to tack down.
1- National Parks. I love them & would hate to see them privatized. I’ve heard RP say that all land should be private, so I’m a little bummed.
2- Gay rights & civil union. I think that I know the answer because he said (I think in the Google interview) that ALL contracts between people were to be respected. That was for business & personal issues. I think that along with his adamant belief that individual liberty comes first, and is THE most important thing, I am satisfied with that.
3-Immigration. I’ve been to his congressional website & listened to his videos & gleaned that he is opposed to illegal immigration & amnesty for illegals, but for legal immigration. That’s good for me!
The talk about power going from Federal to State & slavery really does not hold sway with me because that could have gone either way. Look at the drug laws. It is some states that are being rational & the Fed holding out.
I hope that by putting a “small government” president in office & then working toward “small government” state officials that we will, in time, turn this monster around. To me, the only way that the PEOPLE get stronger is to keep most issues local. Then our state reps can fight the Fed for what we want & don’t want from them.
Can I get a witness?
jonesy~
I have to disagree with what you say. Ron Paul does not believe there is a crime if there is no victim. He does not believe in using force over persuasion. So, he does not think that homosexual behavior should be a legal issue.
Hell, he’s being persecuted by the Christians for holding the view that the internet should not be restricted in any way. They say he is FOR porn!
He is not personally for porn, he’s for freedom & your rights to porn. THAT is what I think is so cool about him!
Debra:
Our National Parks are being turned over to the United Nations. Google UN World Heritage Sites and UN Biosphere Reserves. Thanks in large part to globalist Bill Clinton. Wake up America!
I am a bit confused, maybe because I don’t know a lot about libertarian politics and policies, but it seems that this guy is putting off the problem. Here is what I mean.
He says that Marriage is not a government issue.
He syas that states should decide whether or not they accept gay marriage
But isn’t state government still government? Isn’t that just a small scale model of what he is fundementally opposed to–having government decide issues of our personal lives?
I am all for getting the federal government out of this issue, along with many many others. But his stance on “pro rights” is somewhat tarnished if he is going to allow a system (state government decisions) that will still prevent people from accessing those rights. For example: People are saying that if they want gay marriage, they need to work their state government to allow it. I doubt very seriously, that even if every person that was for gay marriage in the state of Alabama voted to get it allowed that it would pass. The majority in that state is still against it. Therefore, the rights of individuals to get married are being ignored.
Like I said, maybe I am missing something. But it seems to me that putting the issue off onto local gov. is not really going to solve the problem. It just strikes me as him washing his hands of the issue so that he does not have to deal with it.
Brian,
If Paul were president, there’s nothing he can do to compel a state to adopt gay marriage if they were a US Constitutionalist. It’s not the presidents job or power. It’s called federalism. Paul is a Constitutionalist first. He is not an anarchist which is what a pure libertarian is. Anarchist libertarians are also against national borders too. He’s not in that camp.
It’s a common misunderstanding to think because one is Libertarian that they’d support the Federal govt to force states to act accordingly. A libertarian would merely, at the state level, say as a governor, get govt out of marriage.
Perhaps Paul wouldn’t vote that way at the state level either. We’ll never know as he’s not running as a governor. But there are degrees of libertarianism. Paul is also considered a paleo-conservative which tones down his libertarianism. He is not a left libertarian either.
Hope that helps.
lo
“But his stance on “pro rights” is somewhat tarnished if he is going to allow a system (state government decisions) that will still prevent people from accessing those rights. “– Adam
“Allow?” Or follows the jurisdictional, and enumerated powers of the Constitution.
Also, one would have to define the word “rights” thoroughly first.
Have you ever looked it up?
Gays have the same rights as any other person on marriage….to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s the same for everybody. Just because some individuals choose not to is not treating them unequally.
It wasn’t until 1896 or so that govt go involved in marriage in America.
For thousands of years people just upped and married. Nothing more.
So go marry privately…and write a contract for sharing and divvying up property. I think one of the few things you can’t do is invoke next of kin rights for illnesses and dying. Change that first…and work your way from there.
For his latest statement on the issue of gay marriage, view the video of the Google event on his website. In short, he rather clearly states that he supports the rights of gay people to marry.
I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian Republican. We don’t agree on 100% of issues (everyone would be hard pressed to find someone other than themselves with whom they agreed 100% of the time), and I will admit that he has been a little bit weird on the gay marriage issue as well as on DADT, given that he has a very strong record on virtually every other issue (with the exception of immigration; his anti-abortion stance is defendable on libertarian grounds) and has a very strong record of voting in terms of his well-founded judgement of constitutionality of measures. He is quite right (constitutionally and intellectually) when he says that the federal government has no right to define marriage (or to legislate whatsoever in the matter), and he is very right when he says that it is in fact a state’s rights matter. I know that the author of this thread and many who have agreed with him would disagree on this point, but the fact of the matter is that gay marriage is a contractual issue, and it is a long-established constitutional precendent under the 10th Amendment that states have purview in the enforcement, regulation, and governance of contracts. But some of his statements in terms of supporting DOMA (which clearly violates the FFC Clause, regardless of the very poor SC ruling on polygamy and the applicability of FFC to marriage), his support for DADT (which is an inexcusable policy), as well his rhetoric on “preventing the federal government from defining marriage as anything but between a man and a woman” are weird and questionable. But we have to acknowledge that: 1) his latest statement on the record is that he supports marriage rights for gays, and 2) he has most certainly not been in line with the religious right of the party on the issue, who have wanted nothing less than pure and utter discrimination against gays in every respect and wanted a constitutional amendment at the federal level banning gay marriage. On these two points alone, he is rebelling against the neocon-religious right establishment of power in the party and their broader agenda to all-out assault them. For this alone, he is taking a very bold and courageous step, and while it may not be 100% what gay rights activists want, they should still at least pay him some respect for doing so.
I would also like to respond to the comment made earlier that, supposing Ron Paul is against gay marriage, then he is somehow a “hypocrite” for being a libertarian and yet not taking the libertarian stance on an issue. Supposing that it is true he is against gay marriage (which is a statement that contradicts his most recent pronouncements on the issue), and knowing his position on DADT, I don’t think it’s fair to call him a hypocrite for not being a “pure” libertarian. (And knowing his position on immigration, with which I disagree, he’s definitely not a pure libertarian) The fact is that almost no one is purely of one ideological orientation or another, in that they take the position of that orientation on every single issue. I consider myself to be rather libertarian, but I think that government should have a strong role in education, that it should take a significant role in environmental protection, and that there should be a VERY limited welfare state (i.e. an earned income tax credit, and nothing more). Does that mean that I’m a hypocrite and not a real libertarian, even though I follow the libertarian line on about 85-90% of issues? Ron Paul’s libertarian credentials are impeccable in sum; he’s about a 92-95% libertarian in his votes and policy stances. Even if he didn’t follow the libertarian line on one or two issues, he’s still solidly to be considered a libertarian, and certainly the most libertarian without context of any candidates currently running for President in either of the two parties. Given your circumstances, I understand how you feel about this particular issue, but I think it would do society as a whole a great deal of good in general political discussions if we didn’t throw around words like “hypocrite” with such non-chalance and look for ways to attack people personally.
Ron Paul has more integrity and character than any politician in America, and vast numbers on both sides of the aisle will confirm that for you. He is a solid libertarian, and he assesses first and foremost legislation based on his judgement of its constitutionality, and his voting record confirms this. He votes against nearly every spending bill, even bills that would benefit his district, based on his assessment of their lack of constitutionality; try Googling for the reactions of his constituents over the years to votes against farm subsidies, hurricane relief funding, and earmarks for his district for confirmation of this. He voted against the Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the vast majority in both houses of Congress didn’t even read the legislation and rubber-stamped it under the veil of patriotism. He voted against the Iraq War authorization when his party was questioning the patriotism of those who opposed invading Iraq. Even if you disagree with him on certain issues, it’s completely unfair to attack his character for doing so, as for one he has demonstrated an admirable adherence to principle when doing so isn’t popular, and secondly, he would most certainly never do the same to you.
I think sometimes we confuse preference with wanting to force others to have or at least abide by our preference. You can be a conservative Christian (of which I am not), and still be a libertarian. My wife is a Christian conservative, but very much a libertarian. Her take on these matters is simple: “I may not agree with homosexuality, and I make think it is a sin, but who am I to force others to believe the way I do”.
I would prefer my son be heterosexual, since I think his life would be easier. That would be my preference, but if he were gay, I would not write him out of my will, ban him from my home or have any less love for him.
Preferences, ie. a low degree of discrimination, is not bad. We all have it to one degree or another over every subject under the sun. My take on Ron Paul is it is an issue of preference. This talk about the states, keep in mind that the US Constitution and Supreme Court trump the states. Should the states enact laws that violate the Constitution, they will end up in the Supreme Court, exactly where they should. This is an interesting discussion. Glad you brought it up, Brian.
“I would prefer my son be heterosexual, since I think his life would be easier. That would be my preference, but if he were gay, I would not write him out of my will, ban him from my home or have any less love for him.”
I salute you for that statement. :)
This is off-topic, and I apologize, but I had to comment on Larry’s post. I understand and accept all that you say — I would just like you to think on this. I am a 51 gay male, in a loving relationship with another man. The pain of coming out, the insecurities of reactions by family, friends and neighbors is long gone. However the journey, as with most journeys of whatever nature, has made me happier, healthier, more empathetic than if I had not gone through that journey. I am just challenging the statement that your son would have an easier life as a straight male. Undoubtedly, initially he would. But long term, over a life time, I don’t think that is the case any more. Am I asking you to want a gay son? No, but it sure isn’t the stigma it used to be, and the culture is becoming more and more gay-friendly by the year. Rather, I hope that for more and more parents, they will wish for health and happiness for their children and worry less about their children’s sexual orientation.
Scott,
I agree with most of what you say, but as a gay male in his early 30’s, it still isn’t always smooth-sailing. I would certainly think that being straight would be easier, since the laws in this country still treat us like second-class citizens.
Regardless of that fact, I am thankful that we live in a country where we can love who we want without too much worry that someone is going to do us physical harm. That isn’t the case for many gays and lesbians around the world. :(
Well Scott , what you say may be accurate. Note I said I “think”. I did not say I “know”. I can only view it in light of my own preferences and what I see in society (although society is changing).
To be totally honest, I should have said it would be “easier” for me, as well. Surely you can understand and agree that for a parent, a gay child requires more understanding than does a straight child. But happiness is in the eye of the beholder, and as long as you do not infringe on my rights or infringe on my liberty, then you have every right in my mind, to pursue happiness in any form that is right for you and any other consenting adult.
That I think, is the essence of “libertarianism”. You hit it on the head when you say “health and happiness”, as long as you will endorse the caveat that it must not infringe on the liberty of another.
Remember “Whever you go this week, whoever you meet, remember to be kind and gentle, to be thoughtful and gracious for you know not what burdens others may bear in their hearts or in their minds or in their bodies”. Peace
Brian, It will never be smooth-sailing; life never is. But I found it got better and better in two ways — I became more and more comfortable with myself, caring less and less what others thought of me; and society is getting friendlier and friendlier to gay folk.
Larry, I would never infringe on your rights, much less your rights as a parent. I was merely offering something for you to ponder. As you say, peace.
Brian,
Once you understand the concept of individual rights which are natural or God-given and PROTECTED by the Constitution rather than given or taken away by the federal government, the group labels fall away, be it gay, women, conservative, liberal, etc.
For me, it was a radical new way of thinking that I came to understand rather late in life. It is based on the principle that you own your own body and as long as you do not commit force or fraud against another, you can do whatever you like. “Ain’t nobody’s business if you do!”
Ron Paul wants the fed.gov out of our lives and he believes that the Constitution provides for states to make their own laws, not to be usurped by a “one size fits all” concept, handed down in edict form from the fed.
There’s a big medical marijuana issue in California right now addressing the issue of state’s rights. CA voted for use of medicinal marijuana; the DEA is arresting people and shutting the distro facilities down. Whatever your personal stance on the drug issue, should it be the perview of the fed.gov what you put into your own body??? Particularly if you have cancer and are in pain???? Not only no, but HELL no!
Ron Paul sees marriage as a social contract between individuals; not something sanctioned by the fed. Consider this: if the fed “approves” gay marriage, it can also decide all the rules for gay marriage. Shouldn’t it be a commitment between individuals? I say, YES!
That said, I do wish Ron Paul would explain his position more forcefully and with more clarity. I have dozens of gay friends, many of whom are in long term relationships, so I am very aware of the issues that affect them.
At any rate, I honestly and truly believe that there is not a candidate running that would do more to protect our INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, and get the fed out of our lives. And that’s a good thing!
One thing I wanted to state is that if government is turned primarily over to states rights then the American people will again have the right to vote with their feet. In states such as California, New York and Illinois with large democratic backgrounds and beliefs the rights of people will grow without Federal interference. In states such as Georgia, Alabama and Tennesse these rights may very well be infringed upon. The one thing that we must all be aware of is that if the federal government gains too much power the rights of all individuals in all states will be infringed upon. George Bush has proven this time and again with the patriot act, his laws against abortion and his stance on gay marriage. The only reason that gay marriage is legal at all is b/c of states rights if the fed had the power now to say whether or not gay marriage should be legal it would not be in any of the states. The government should have no say in what I choose to do with my body, mind or soul including but not limited to same sex unions. I should be endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as was promised to all citizens when this country was founded. If the pursuit of my happiness is another woman then my freedoms should not be abused b/c of this. All human freedoms are recogninzed more freely by libertarians than any other type of political party. I believe we need a libertarian president. My only question is will Ron Paul keep the same values when elected? Or will he dissapoint as easily as all other candidates? Many people claim to be things they are not in order to become president and I along with most other americans have become jaded with our process(even though it is the best in the world right now). If Ron Paul will bring about the kind of changes he promises then he will be a strong and ethical president. The first we have had in a very long time.
Thank you for this post and the discussion following it.
I just wanted to clock in as another very, very queer american who is 100% behind Ron Paul. I am registering republican (who would have thought?) so that I can vote for him in the primary.
We queer ppl of the US need to look beyond the black and white of party line, and notice that one candidate alone is speaking to the rights of individuals. One candidate alone is speaking of peace instead of war as foreign policy…Ron Paul.
Let us remember, that those of us who are queer have been taught by experience that there is no black and white, only shades of gray. Let us not get caught up in a binary battle.
Thanks again.
Wow, that’s a lot of responses!
I am the “Ray” from way up there above in the comments.
By the way, you’re cute.
Peace
Brian,
I am very interested in this thread, and am wondering if I could ask you a question, then check back after you’ve answered? This is something that I’ve spent some time thinking about and I’m curious to have your take on things.
When you say “same rights as other americans”, what–specifically–do you mean? You mention that the laws in this country “still treat us like second-class citizens”. What is the differential that you use to distinguish the second-class from the implied first-class?
Alex,
My response became so long that I decided to just write a completely new post. Here it is:
http://inrepair.net/2007/08/04/why-gays-are-second-class-citizens/
Thanks for your interest and I hope that I’ve provided some examples of why I believe gays and lesbians are being treated like second-class citizens in a country where all are supposed to be “equal”.
“According to the research that I have done, Dr. Paul voted against the FMA only because he believes that federal law should not trump state law, not because he believes in protecting or expanding gay rights.”
And this is a problem, why?
What the hell is wrong with you people. Someone that puts the Constitution as his top priority is a much more attractive candidate than to someone who violates it to push an agenda, no matter how “good” that agenda is.
The fact is, the Constitution is the foundation of the freedom you cherish. When you promote violations of it you promote tyranny. There are perfectly legal ways to push civil rights forward without violating the foundation of the free speech you use to support said civil rights with.
I find this whole mentality extremely hypocritical and selfish. As long as gay rights are moving forward, f**k the rest of em right?
Ron Paul stands up for rights. When you arbitrarily separate them into different classes of rights, and say the likes of “rights X need more momentum”, YOU are the offender of freedom, all for personal gain.
You know what would be amazing? If Ron Paul is a staunch homophobe but STILL doesn’t try to enact legislation like all the other homophobe politicians, instead he leaves the government to the PEOPLE like any free government was meant to be. Ron Paul has principles and I don’t give a f**k whether his personal beliefs about religions, philosophy, and personal rights are because he is the strongest advocate of our time for freedom, and freedom is in essence a precursor of, and symbiotic with individual rights and free thought – and that includes your values for gay rights.
Oh, Dan.
You don’t seem to understand that gays have LESS rights than straight people do, and many of the states in this country will continue to deny those rights until the federal government mandates (through the Supreme Court) that they can’t.
If you let each state decide how they are going to treat this group and that group, then we’ll have to drop the first part of our country’s name, because we will certainly no longer be “united”.
All this talk that turning the power back to the states is somehow enabling the people to control their government is malarkey. First of all, my state laws certainly don’t always represent the will of the people, especially when special interests groups facilitate change through the legislative branch. Secondly, if the majority in each state always ruled, I shiver to think where civil rights would be at this point.
It’s not that I don’t understand that the federal government is too big and too powerful; quite the opposite. A quick read of my site will show you many examples of where I think EVERYONE’S rights are being taken away. Since that isn’t likely to change anytime soon, I will rely on the current system to give me what I want and what I rightly deserve.
I’m not being selfish. I just expect to have the same rights as all other Americans. If you think RP can provide those rights to me, then explain how, because I’m frankly not seeing it.
I would think that so long as there is no law that specifically refers to people’s sexual orientation, then everyone has equal rights in this regard. From a libertarian perspective, forcing employers to hire you, or whatever, amounts to extra (unjust) rights.
I’m a Paul supporter and I want everyone on board, but some people might just never resonate with a message of freedom.
THE CASE AGAINST RON PAUL
Brian,
Thank you for starting this thought provoking thread. I was previously (but am no longer) a supporter of Dr. Paul. Initially attracted to his economic ideas, I’ve reluctantly come to believe that Ron Paul (1) falls short as a leader, (2) could be inflexible to the point of engendering prejudice, and (3) would be too idealistic to be practical as America’s chief executive. I’m also of course bothered by his lack of specificity on rights issues. Here’s my thinking:
(1) LEADERSHIP DEFICIT: A good leader must apply common sense and bring at least a modicum of flexibility to any ideology, (including Paul’s Libertarian brand of Constitutionalism). Dr. Paul sadly indicates in his interviews that there would be little room for interpretation in his regime, and that he would exclusively enforce his own literal interpretation of the Constitution. Life is not “black and white” for the most part, and I look for a certain sophistication and flexibility of thought and action in a leader.
(2) HIS INFLEXIBILITY WOULD BE LIKELY TO ENGENDER PREJUDICE: An unbending approach to governing sounds strangely familiar: I’m reminded by history that many ideologies and religions have had some grains of truth, and seemed for a time like a “quick fix” for some issues near and dear to the hearts and emotions of the “people”; however, regimes and other institutions guided by an inflexible interpretation of their original principles can quickly become oppressive and dictatorial, especially for those who holds a minority opinion. A pedantic leader’s version of truth becomes the ONLY truth.
No one has a corner on the truth of another’s life. Who is Dr. Paul to cast away the hard-fought rights of many USA minorities to the whims of the majority electorate of the individual states? In my view, that would be a tragedy. Dr. Paul seems willing to ignore the plight of minorities by mis-using the justification that the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in such matters. Such simiplistic thinking can easily lead to abuses of the system, abuses of individuals, and loss of rights. I don’t believe a leader should arrogantly adhere to his or her pet ideology, and treat dismissively anyone who disagrees.
(3) HE IS TOO IDEALISTIC TO BE A PRACTICAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN MODERN AMERICA: Libertarian ideals, no matter how attractive and pure they are from an academic standpoint, work best in an honest system of government. It is folly to think that a strict Constitutionalist approach to governing would eliminate the institutionalized governmental corruption (think lobbyists) in every city, state, and federal government in the USA. If anything, the lack of Federal protections would reduce the already decimated checks and balances of the American system and encourage further lobbyist spending. The idealist in me is attracted to Libertarian values, but the pragmatist in me cannot vote for an idealist who ignore the benefits and practicality of a less than literal interpretation of our great Constitution.
Chuck in Los Angeles
Vote for Dennis Kucinich!If you watched the Logo debates,you know he is the best candidate by far!
Brian,
I stumbled across this thread and I am glad I did. It has been a very civil discourse on the policies of the candidate whom I support. Just to give you some perspective on my viewpoints, I am straight, middle class, spiritual but not religious, full supporter of your cause. I may not have gone through the same things as you have as a gay man but I stuck by my dearest friend as he struggled to find his identity and happiness as a gay man.
You said in your last comment that you want someone to explain how RP can provide the rights you deserve. I’ve been trying to come up with some examples or quotes to sway your opinion so that you sill support him but most already be said. What I will give you is this.
You, and the gay community in general I suspect, want the opponents of your cause to see you as equals. You want the same rights as everyone else and to live your life in the way that makes you happy. You want liberty. I agree with RP on that we need to start treating people as individuals and that our rights exist not because they are provided by the state, but that our rights exist because we exist. I think ultimately that is the cause that all of the civil right movements have been about, Liberty.
Forgive me, writing has never been my strongest skill. My point is I think you should support RP because he will bring the same cause for equality and liberty that you are fighting in your local community/city/state to the federal level. While you fight for change in your state, RP will bring the fight down from the highest office in the country. When the two meet, I believe then we will have real change and liberty for all individuals.
…
Dennis Kucinich supports impeachment and 911 Truth. Ron Paul doesn’t. Dennis Kucinich is a champion of the working class and small business. Ron Paul champions big business. Dennis Kucinich is an environmentalist who supports clean and renewable energy. Ron Paul supports Big Oil. Dennis Kucinich supports single-payer not-for-profit healthcare. Ron Paul supports free market for-profit healthcare.
http://www2.kucinich.us
Marc,
I do believe that Ron Paul would support equal rights for everyone, but I don’t think the rest of the government would follow suit so easily.
Thanks so much for your comment and your kind words!
Brian- I just got a chance to read this post, and all of the responses. What a fascinating and educational discussion!
moonbeammcqueen,
I’ll bet that took awhile! :)
Ron Paul’s a libertarian, but he also seems to be a fairly conservative Christian as well. It’s not necessarily that the two are incompatible but they create a bit of tension which may color exactly how “small government” libertarian he’s gonna be on certain issues. Unfortunately, in this case it seems his conservative Christian faith trumps and contradicts his libertarianism.
I tend to agree with the guy who posted earlier that one should not have to ask the state for permission to get married. It’s up to the individuals to create such a contract between themselves.
The advantage of leaving it to the states is that gay people would have the option of flocking to a state that allows gay marriage. ( Just as many flee states with high taxes for states with lower taxes.)
The problem with letting the feds decide is that it energizes the religious freaks and it has the potential of killing any progress whatsoever. When the social conservatives get in power, the negative effects bleed over in to other issues as well.
It is very much like drug legalization. Right now, since the feds control the issue, no progress can be made anywhere in the country. If the feds were no involved, some conservative states might be prohibitionist, but there would be plenty of non-prohibitionist states.
The states can decide on alcohol. How many states prohibited that after 1933??
MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ RON PAUL’S OWN ANTI-GAY POSITION:
However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
RON PAUL OPPOSES CIVIL RIGHTS. CHECK HIS RECORD. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIRES SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. HE SUPPORTS ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF BUSINESSES, WHILE OPPOSING VIRTUALLY EVERY CIVIL RIGHT HE TOUCHES. HE LIES ABOUT HIS STANCE ON ABORTION. COMPARE HIS VOTING RECORD TO HIS STATED ABORTION POSITION.
BYE BYE RON PAUL!
John Silver?
HUH?
Oh and Brian, can I clue you in on something Dr. Paul must 1st win the primary, in doing so you can not alienate a certain base, but you can’t flat out lie either. Muddling as such is so that he doesn’t alienate his core crazy Christian base.
Remember Dr. Paul says there should be no government involvement in marriage. If you think about that statement, wow! Besides if you aren’t paying income tax the benefits will only come to you in the private sector any how.
As a gay person partnered for 30 years, should my partner pre-decease me, I will lose my home to FEDERAL estate taxes, due to the tremendous increase in property value since the original purchase. We have other friends who have gone through this misery – having to pay almost 50% on their deceased partner’s half of the property. Worse, should you live in a home your partner solely purchased, one is taxed on the full amount. In our case, our financial advisor tells us (as well as estate planners) that I will have to pay the Federal US government $2 million within 9 months of my partner’s death. I will have to sell our home to meet this Federal requirement. I bring up this issue since Ron Paul indicates that same-sex marriage/civil union matters be left to individual states. Will that also be the case for Federal estate taxes? Is he intending to repeal them? Not one candidate has mentioned this yet anywhere. It is a VERY important principle for us all. Ironically, President Bush (whom I detest) is the only president who has tried to repeal the estate (or “death”) tax. I distinctly remember him addressing a gay organization (several years ago) on this very issue, and he said “gay people should stick with me; I’ll repeal the death tax and you won’t have this problem any longer”. The year 2010 is the only year that the repeal will take place (due to his efforts).
If my partner and I were allowed to have a Civil Union recognized on the FEDERAL level (not State), the property would automatically pass to me, tax free, like any married couple. A man and woman can marry 5 minutes before the death of their spouse, and have these rights. For all the years I have been with my partner, as well as friends who have been together 40 and some over 50 years, there are absolutely no rights. A remote 4th cousin that we’ve never met (for example) would have more legal rights than me to my partner’s estate.
Not only does one lose one’s partner, but also the house you’ve shared for years. There is no solution; we have consulted high profile lawyers, as have our friends. Even if property is (at this point) transferred to a trust, capital gains taxes or gift taxes are involved. In our case, that means shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Federal Government to do so (which we cannot afford). When my partner’s estate is audited (should he pre-decease me), I can even legally be penalized with Federal gift tax for every year I have lived with him, since he earns more than me. Not too mention a pension, health coverage, social security, etc., that I will not be entitled to (issues even more important to a stay at home partner with children, should her/his partner die).
Civil unions (on a FEDERAL LEVEL, NOT STATE) would provide acknowledgment and thus protection from these unfair federal laws. I fear too many in the gay community do not understand the difference between Federal Civil Unions and state recognized same-sex marriages. State recognized same-sex marriages don’t offer much protection in many legal areas. State inheritance taxes are very low, and some states don’t have them at all. For old-timers like myself and many of my friends, same-sex marriage or civil unions is not about dressing in tuxedos, renting a limousine and throwing a party for our family and friends. It is about much more. Couples with children have even more complicated scenarios than my partner and I do.
I stress the use of the phrase “Federal” as opposed to “State” taxes, because this is where the bulk of same-sex issues lies. I find many people aren’t aware of these financial penalizations, since many people do not fall under the same tax bracket as we do. But many do – and many of you may also one day. It is one example of extreme discrimination against gay people (I read someone’s earlier comment that they don’t understand exactly how gay people are discriminated against). And I hope you all realize that having a state legalize gay marriage is only the beginning – and we don’t even have that recognition yet.
I find that many straight Americans associate the word “marriage” with their personal beliefs (which can be threatening to them in the context of “same sex marriage”) whereas the term “civil union” is associated with laws and civil rights (which are not personally threatening). Perhaps “civil union” on a federal level is a better route for definite action for obtaining some meaningful, and much needed, federal civil rights.
I hope I haven’t taken too long to express myself. Thank you for this opportunity!
I came across this video entitled “Ron Paul on Homosexuality” on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
@ Luke – Thanks very much for sharing that video link. His statements in this interview make me feel a little better about his personal views. The guy interviewing him is a real jerk-off, though.
Some of his personal views make me a bit upset, I suppose. I’m a bit more liberal than he is, but Ron Paul had really been catching my eye for my vote this year, until I started reading on his polished idyllic concepts of how his state-not-fed ideologies would play out in his head. He really pussyfoots around the homosexual issue.
Sure, people think it would be a good thing to leave it up to the states, but I think that would be a horrible thing. What if you left civil rights up to the states back a century ago? What if you left women’s rights up to the states? It takes sweeping notions and a brilliant and open leader to show people not to be afraid of change. Dr. Ron Paul could bring great change to this country, but I fear because of his conservative ideologies (which aren’t bad, mind you, I have some conservative beliefs), he believes that the States will be fair and just, more just, than the Government, when that isn’t the case at all.
The sad reality is most people would recognize equality if it was by law recognizable. Civil rights didn’t stop racism, but it helped the issue. But most states would vote against gay marriage, against gay adoption, etc. And then homosexuals would just take more steps back in movement for their rights as equal citizens of the United States.
If we had left the individual states to give their own system of justice to ‘individuals’, it wouldn’t have ended well. Why? Because, Dr. Ron Paul, when you are appealing to people on a campaign, especially white vote, it’s easy to talk about how thinking of people as ‘individuals’ cancels out minority rights and special interests groups. However, the TRUTH is that people , especially in this country, OVERWHELMINGLY think of people in terms of groups, and this won’t stop. It’s human nature. And these homosexuals will be judged as a group of people, not as individuals.
So it isn’t fair. Not one bit.
If only his stance on this were different. He’d be getting my vote. I’m a Democrat but I sure as hell don’t care for Obama or Hillary at the moment. Ah well.
Hi Brian,
I HAVE YOUR ANSWER!
With regard to Ron Paul and gay marriage:
He is not pussyfooting around the issue as the last commenter said. He’s just too smart to think that the issue is simply one of whether “I like homosexuals too” will make an iota of difference in the federal government.
I think that you’re better off supporting a candidate who holds a political philosophy that would facilitate gay marriage than one who simply pays it lip service to it, but supports a governmental structure that makes it impossible.
In that regard, I think Ron Paul is your man. Plenty of Democrats will tell you that they support gay rights, today anyway. But lip service to the electorate doesn’t last 5 minutes in legislative sessions and White House press breifings. In fact, the last democratic president opposed gay marriage legislation (Is there any reason to think his wife will be different?).
If you want gay marriage, you have to push for a devolution of power back to the states. It’s that simple because the states are the ones legalizing gay marriage. Ron Paul has held a devolutionary position for as long as he has been a politician. He has never waivered. No democrat who has held office as long as he has can say that.
We need to stop listening to politicians’ stump speeches and start looking at their records. We need to ignore their lip service and start concerning ourselves with how their more tested positions can help us. Ron Paul has spoken out against his own party in the face of almost-unanimous opposition and a career-ending political climate. He voted against the gay-marriage ban and he thinks the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy unreasonably inhibits the rights of homosexuals. This guy is the real deal. Who cares if he is personally comfortable with gay marriage? Is that what you want? Someone to sympathize with you? Or do you want somoene who will make changes to benefit you even when he doesn’t “feel your pain”? His policies will facilitate gay marriage, and that’s all you need to give a shit about.
Elect a government-loving democrat and you will *never* see gay marriage legalized. I don’t care how much they believe in it. The federal government is constructed to make something like that tremendously difficult to pass muster.
Devolution is the only way for you, my man.
G
I’ve been eavesdropping on the conversation and and wondering something…
Libertarians seem to stress the connection between individual rights, getting gov’t out of peoples lives and the intent of the constitution.
Whenever I go back and read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I can’t help but feel the fore fathers who wrote these were most concerned about the inherent inbalance of power betweeen individuals and groups. (Mob vs. one). This, I believe, was the underlying theme of the why people left England. Religion happened to be the particular issue that initiated it, but by the time these documents were written, religion was not mentioned, except to state unoquivocally the freedom of religion, and this was added as the first amendment. (bill of rights). There is much written about individual rights in context of the stressing the importance of them, with the judicial branch being created to ensure adherence to the principles of the Constitution without regard to the will of the people.
All this is a long winded way of saying, “Hasn’t history shown the consistent need for more clarification (amendments) in order to prevent the masses from having their way with the little guy (interracial couples, black, jewish, women, gay, etc)?”
This would seem to be the similar to libertarianism but not the same as the views of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul advocating for states rights over federal law, feeling that they are more appropriately equipped to make decisions on inequality. At least from the way I read it, that simply passes the buck to 50 states and increases the risk of inequality happening more (some states don’t want interracial marriage?).
In regards to same sex marriage specifically, Ron Paul appears to take a common republican view (cheney) which is – let the states decide. If he were concerned about personal freedom for all, I would think he would be speaking out against states that have passed amendments forbidding certain people from having the personal freedom to marry (gays)! I see the opposite with him. He has stated that in principle, the DADT policy is a good one? The policy major objective is to pressure gays to be secretive and punish for living “freely”. The minor part is the don’t ask part as we can see from the numbers – the reason most people are kicked out of the services under this policy is because they live their lives somewhat closeted but not enough to elude the attention and refuse to thus making the situation unresolvable under DADT. To believe that states inherently have more wisdom to treat people fairly does not square with what history shows. Segregation, interracial marriage, women’s rights, sodomy laws are all things made better only after the federal govt stepped in, tested the treatment against the Constitution and found the treatment unfair.
I shudder to think of 50 states having the right to treat people the way they see fit and ignore the Constitution or other states laws and imagine that “the majority” would soon agree if their marriages were suddenly left to the mercy of the homosexuals to treat them fairly.
Greg, the states are also the ones who have passed far MORE amendments to forbid same sex marriage (and civil unions in many cases) than to allow it.
Being one of the special class myself, I am grateful to the democrats who have made my life much easier and suspicious of many republicans who claim to have my best interest at heart when they chant “we’re for personal freedom and getting gov’t out of your lives”.
Just my little ol’ opinion.
This is a very comprehensive discussion, which I linked here:
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2007/11/day-of-dead-part-2-ron-paul-in.html
Hope you don’t mind, and thanks!
I thought RP was a Libertarian, but when I googled him I was shocked to see that he introduced something called the “We The People” act. Had it passed, this act would have stopped people from going to court for claims involving the invasion of privacy. RP does not believe in a right to privacy. Had his We The People act passed, it would have allowed for ANY state to pass whatever intrusive laws it wanted to against adults of sound mind! It would give states the right to outlaw certain sex acts/practices between CONSENTING ADULTS!
Letting state governments controll the sex lives of it’s adult citizens while simultaneously taking away their right to go to court over such a power grab is somehow equivalent in RP’s mind to getting government out of peoples lives?
Did I miss something. This is no different than the line touted by the BuyBull thumpers. He’s also against a womens right to choose. He’s also against the 64 civil rights act! WTF! WTF! This guy is NO Liberatarian. He is a rightwing conservative BuyBull thumping Christian in Libertarian clothing.
Don’t believe me, check out Wikipedia on him.
Very interesting conversation.
In sum, I just don’t believe Ron Paul (and most people) really believe that government shouldn’t interfere in people’s lives. Like many who profess themselves as libertarian, what he really is saying is government shouldn’t make me do things I don’t like, but I/others should be able to prohibit other people from doing things that I don’t like. With respect to gay issues, Ron Paul can’t escape from the fact that he thinks people should have the right to prohibit gays from having their relationships legally recognized. He’s just against the federal government from saying so, it’s perfectly fine for the states to do so, even all 50! What a cop out, a government is a government, is it better that it’s just more local?
He thinks “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a decent policy. Oh really, the constitution doesn’t protect freedom of speech? An individual should be discharged from the army simply by making a true statement, “I’m gay?” How pathetic for any American, Bill Clinton included, to suggest that they were upholding the Constitution with that one. Similarly, prohibiting military staff from asking if a person is gay, while it may be impolite and inapproprite, shouldn’t be prohibited by statute if you really believe in the First Amendment.
Is he against gay adoption? Probably wouldn’t make a federal law out of it, but why not let the states decide? What about being fired from your job for being gay (Jewish, black, Latino)? Well with this one, you know the libertarians will say let the individual business owner decide, can’t let the state decide, why that’s running other people’s lives!!
Let’s face it folks, unless you are an anarchist, all these politicians, Ron Paul included, have opinions and plans on how government will dictate social policy which will affect all of us. The way they do it can be through commission, omission or neglect. Each individual should therefore choose the candidate which most reflects their social views. In my opinion, by not advocating the rights of gays to marry/ form civil unions (which as stated above, entails many property rights), by not changing legislation allowing them to serve openly in the military, and by not prohibiting job discrimination shows he’s just fine with individuals/ groups/ states treating gays as they see fit, which may not be good.
BTW, In Massachusetts, a overwhelmingly Democratic legislature prevented court ordered same-sex marriage from being put to a vote by the people, ensuring their legality. So it’s simply a lie that Democrats would not advance that issue, although given their anemic response to our constant erosion of civil liberties, one wonders if they would.
Imagine you are the owner of a Christian book store. Wouldn’t you want to discriminate so that you could find a decent (according to your own morality codes) employee? Why does the owner of a store not get to decide who to employ? And as an employee, don’t you seek employment in places where you believe you will be comfortable? Why does the employer have to change his/her views in order to comply? Imagine you are the owner of a store that sells breastfeeding and attachment parenting related goods. Would you want to hire someone who doesn’t believe in what the store represents? Refusing employment to someone is not “causing harm” since all you’re saying is, you wouldn’t be a good fit here.
I don’t know the answers; I’m a seeker and I’m interested in what other people think. I don’t mean to be inflammatory.
@ fightingwindmills:
I feel that discrimination against homosexuals/blacks/hispanics/etc is much different from not hiring someone because they have opposing beliefs about the product a particular store is selling. While some believe that homosexuality is a choice, most of the scientific data does not back up that claim. Therefore, discriminating against someone for their genetic makeup should be unacceptable.
A Christian bookstore could easily hire a homosexual who believes strongly in the Bible, but one would be hard-pressed to find an employee that believes in every thing written in every book that is for sale in said store. That isn’t reason enough to prevent that person’s employment.
Imagine what events might take place if an employee of a Christan bookstore were to come out of the closet. Would firing that person really be the Christ-like thing to do?
I do agree that most people seek jobs where they feel comfortable, but not all of us have the luxury.
There are many things that Ron Paul says that I don’t agree with, but there are just as many that I do. If he succeeds in his bid for the White House, I hope that he will stick to his strict interpretation of the Constitution and not allow his personal religious views to dictate policy.
Thanks for joining in on the conversation and raising some good questions/points!
I kept reading in the comments that Paul supports the rights of everyone and that he believes in individual rights and that he won’t let his person views cloud his judgment. My response to that is simple. YEAH RIGHT!
1) In saying that Paul believes in individual rights and ergo gay and lesbian rights, one must assume that Paul views homosexuals as individuals. Many conservative Christians do not see homosexuals as anything more than deviants. We are not individuals with God-given rights. We are pathological deviants who should be subjected to reparitive therapy until such time as we feel intimidated enough to lie about our sexual orientation. I speak not only as a former conservative Christian, but also as someone who survived reparitive therapy.
2) Let us go back to 2000 when people were still undecided about President Bush. His campaign kept saying that while his personal beliefs are conservative Christian, he would put the country’s needs above his personal beliefs. Well, it is 2007 now and at every single opportunity… Bush has chosen his beliefs over the good of the country. Including his mystical belief that Sadaam Hussein was a major threat to this country.
With these two things in mind, I have a very hard time supporting Ron Paul. While I consider myself a libertarian by philosophy, I realize that too much of our nation’s structure is predicated upon the two party system. In a time of war both militarily and culturally, I am just unwilling to chance any major changes to our country’s current system. I am far too concerned that the bloody results of the French and Russian Revolutions will be the same bloody results in 2009 in America. The last thing we need is a violent revolution that makes us vulnerable to our real threats abroad and at home.
Brian, I definitely get that homosexuality is not a choice. But I think that if someone gets fired and cries foul and is able to show in court that it was because of skin color or sexual preference the employer is the bad guy. The employer has to have some way of judging who would make a good employee. If they can get to know each other as individuals and they become comfortable around each other and respect each other because of their own intiatives, then that’s ideal. But, is it really fair to federally force someone to be comfortable around someone else? The employee who doesn’t want to work somewhere is just as guilty of not feeling comfortable as the employer is guilty of not wanting to hire someone who makes him uncomfortable. But is being uncomfortable a crime? I can’t fix someone else and make them like me. It’s too presumptuous. That’s why the University of Delaware got in trouble for their ideological reeducation program. I’m sorry I don’t know how to make this link look pretty, but if you click on it, you can read about the program.
http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8597.html?PHPSESSID=cc262425b5685907c1c41e4be9200332
@ fightingwindmills: The program you linked to is pretty creepy!
I agree with you on your point about forcing someone to be comfortable around someone else. It’s impossible in some cases.
I still like many of the things that he says, but there seems to be a disconnect somewhere in his views on equality.
From Wiki:
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.”[122]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
If he believes all people are equal under the Constitution, then how can he defend straight-marriage (DOMA), while speaking against same-sex marriage. It seems hypocritical.
Exactly, because teaching children that marriage is something they should aspire to have in their lives is “social engineering”. Any value that gets passed down would be social engineering, yet paleoconservatives are so eager to criticize the “diversicrats” of teaching inclusiveness. I don’t know where the compromise can be.
It will be a joyous day for me when Americans stop describing themselves as “something-American” rather than just saying plain American. I am a guy who just happens to be black. I am a heterosexual as well and I am left handed, and an engineer by profession. Can you imagine how many names or descriptons that can be ascribed to me? My thoughts are that we are born with our inalienable rights and as people there are only bad people and good people; no matter if we are black, white, yellow, gay, straight, or can’t decide who we are. We are on the slippery slope of discrimination today because we deceided years ago to categorize people and accord special “rights” to each category. The hate crime laws are good examples. Murder used to be a capital crime punishable my death. But today, if the murdered individual is black or gay, then we need a special murder category called hate crime, as if the victim is not dead enough under regular murder. We don’t even have the stomach to send people to death row anymore so what is the point of having special terms for such crimes? In the same time, how does one stand up for gay rights when there are no such rights? I we just followed the constitution and its intent we would be a lot better off today with our relationships to each other, for none of us are free of discriminatory thoughts ande actions. That is the nature of hemans and no amount of legislation is going to cause us to like or respect everyone equally.
@ Dennis: You are correct that legislation will never force people to respect others. However, “hate crimes” by definition are crimes that are intended to terrorize an entire group of people, not just the unfortunate victim.
I understand what you are saying and don’t necessarily disagree with you. But, I do feel that a crime against a community is different than a crime against an individual.
I also think it’s impossible to live without labels. We’d even have to get rid of our two-party system. ;)
I agree with you Dennis. I don’t think we should call each other a such and such Americans either.
Brian, Dennis Kucinich is going to be at the Ani DiFranco concert I am going to on Sunday. Have you considered supporting him or are you all about John Edwards now? Just curious. I’ll let you know if I get any insights on why Ani supports him.
@ fightingwindmills: I don’t know that much about Kucinich, but I’m interested in hearing what Ani has to say about him. Keep me updated!
As a middle-class, Christian traditionalist and registered Republican, I am often grouped into that ‘right-wing Christian conservative’ bloc. I don’t fit the definition. There are probably lots more like me. I’m pro-life, but I support your right to make your own choice. I love my gay, lesbian, & trans. friends and relatives. I don’t care about anyone’s sexuality one way or the other, it’s simply no one’s business. I care only that you don’t infringe on the rights of others. I don’t believe anyone’s relationships are the governments business in any way.
I chose my religion, my morality. I support your right, your liberty, to make that choice for yourself as well.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Love one another.
Being Christian doesn’t prevent being truly libertarian. It supports it.
Peace to all.
Love this thread lots of great info. I started reading because I have a bunch of gay friends and I don’t want to vote them under the bus by voting republican. I’m a Democrat, but I just happen to think Ron Paul is the right leader for the America we have today. We’re struggling people… and I hate to say this, but its not all about who’s going to protect your gay rights.
This man is in all senses of the word, a pascifist. Well… I take that back, he very aggressively believes in pascifism. As people have said above, that includes not meddling in gay people’s personal affairs. I believe he is a kind, good-spirited person from what I’ve seen. He may not protect your gay rights, but he will protect your human rights. (Which in-turn WILL protect your gay rights.)
Everytime a touchy subject comes up, he takes it on straight forward and with honesty. I realized after watching him speak that that’s all our country needs to pull back together! We need someone who’s smart, honest, and brave enough to challenge the status-quo. I feel like I can trust this guy to do the right thing, he changed his stance on the death penalty after reviewing the facts and I think thats very brave of him. It takes guts to openly admit you’re wrong about something, or that your oponent in a debate makes a good point… Congressman Paul does this.
I don’t think voting for Ron Paul will screw anyone over except the bankers who own this country. I hope you continue to investigate Ron Paul as I will, and continue to discuss this very exciting and REFRESHING candidate.
Since I heard Kucinich speak at Ani’s concert, I understood that his main goals are to 1) eliminate nuclear energy and focus on sustainable energy 2) fight worldwide poverty 3) base our foreign policy on peace
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/
This is an article from when he ran for president in 2004 (Ani supported him then too):
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_562_01.html
Very thought provoking comments that have made me ponder something… Would a gov’t which takes no responsibility for promoting any sense of right and wrong (is amoral.. .is that a word? :) ) be better for the world and it’s people, worse or have not effect on it? Where does personal freedoms and protections stop and morality begin? For instance, I was a child when smoking was accepted in every establishment. Now, because of gov’t intervention, we have smoke-free buildings. I see this as a benefit to society, a “step up” in our treatment of each other and being better stewards of our planet. But this would not have happened without the gov’t dictating it. Is it the gov’ts role to set some tone- minimum standard? I’m conflicted about how I feel. Add to this, my belief that those in society who are NOT spiritual and do not follow any religious beliefs most often get their moral compass from the laws, it’s scary to think of the gov’t not having a role in promoting some positive behavior. I think more likely, many believe the gov’t has SOME role in being a positive infuence on society – it’s just that we just can’t seem to agree on what constitutes a “positive influence”.
ps. I’m lesbian, Christian, liberal, conservative, american, fashion challenged and agree wholeheartedly that there are entirely too many labels. :)
Ron Paul, July 22, 2004
Source
But Brian, Ron Paul is right. Marriage has been defined a certain way and redefining it would be social engineering. People who are married don’t always act married (yet they qualify for the benefits) and people who are not married sometimes do act married (yet have benefits withheld from them). What we all want is to be rewarded for our choices. You’ve chosen to be a partner in a committed relationship, and you want to be rewarded, but I don’t know that you’ll ever be “married”. Do you see what I mean? Would you have the rewards without the label? Or is the label what you’re fighting for?
@ fightingwindmills: I used to think that having the rights would be enough, but the more I think about how ignorant it is to allow the rights but not the term “marriage”, the more determined I am to see full marriage for gays and lesbians.
I think Ron Paul’s statement is rather absurd. First of all, allowing homosexuals to marry isn’t “imposing” a new definition of marriage on anyone. It’s simply opening it up to couples that are currently excluded. Allowing blacks and whites to inter-marry certainly didn’t redefine marriage, and neither would this. Secondly, he implies that allowing gay marriage would be hostile to liberty. That in itself is moronic.
His statement was made in an attempt to get his bill passed that would protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. While that may be understandable from a libertarian point of view, I think it speaks to his personal views about the issue.
Many states didn’t want to allow interracial marriage, but the Supreme Court forced them to. One has to wonder what Ron Paul’s view on that might be, given that he always thinks the state’s wishes should be honored.
Try to imagine yourself in my shoes. I work, pay taxes, and obey the law. I simply want to bind myself with the one that I love through a simple ceremony that is legally binding and provides important benefits to both partners. The fact that my government limits me to one particular sex, the one I’m not attracted to, is quite frustrating. It’s simply not the way things should be done in a society that values personal liberty.
Sorry for the rant. I’m not ranting at you, just at the world in general. ;)
It’s okay, Brian. Your frustration is understandable and I’m glad that you are able to express yourself so well. I guess it’s hard to find “the right” to be married in the Constitution, but I did look it up and I am thinking about it. Thank you for helping me think about it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
I live in Virginia and I’m married to someone who has dark skin. I didn’t even know that I would have been going against “Almighty God” according to the judge of the Lovings’ case in 1959. How easily we forget our history lessons.
The same God that motivates the majority to fight against allowing me to get married is the same God who asks of me no less than He asks of them. He asks this of me and my fellow man prevents it. There is no question as to Who I believe and how I will live my life. The more appropriate question is “does one persons faith trump anothers?”. Some churches don’t allow divorced people to marry, some don’t allow people outside of their denomination to marry members, etc.
Do these same people have the right to tell my church who they can and can’t marry?
Is this religious freedom?
Is this equality?
For my religious brothers and sisters – What do you think is the bigger sin in His eyes? To make this judgment yourselves and prevent me this choice OR allow me the choice and have Him indeed think it’s a sin.
None are easily answered without reflection.
“Might” doesn’t equal “Right”. The two concepts, while often used by americans to justify the abuse of power, have no inherent relationship to one another. The plethora of stories in the Bible talk to this very point.
Peace.
While I like much of Ron Paul’s libertarian leanings, there are a few issues I am concerned about.
1. If he believes individual rights are the most cherished, and that capital punishment is an appropriate form of punishment for certain crimes, and that the federal government should not be involved in health care, then his personal perspective on abortion should not even be a point of discussion for him. His being staunchly pro-life is a moot point if his political principles are to be trusted.
2. If the constitution intended to ensure individual rights of all people, then Dr. Paul should be saying “loud and clear” that marriage between any two people should be embraced and that all tax law, asset protection, death benefits, and personal freedoms associated with any marriage should be uniformly recognized.
3. I disagree with Dr. Paul regarding “Don’t ask, don’t tell” It does not work because it imposes a code of secrecy that, by it’s nature, “protects” one “group” from another (protects hetrosexuals from homosexuals). Neither “group” needs protection, they simply need full freedom to live honestly.
I think all of this talk about NOT allowing gyas to marry actually is a cover up for Paul’s homophobia.
Citing all these reasons why Gays cannot be allowed into the same institutions is excluding to the extrems. If indeed he will not allow gays to marry because marrige doesn’t belong in the governmental sphere, is he then seekign to exclude marraige from government? I think not….he is only excluding marriage for Gays.
Questions: does Ron Paul favor allowing gays to serve in the military? If he says no….then I believe that his talk of “freedoms” is a cover for simple homophobia.
Why don’t we email Dr. Paul, direct him to this blog post and ask him to reiterate his official opinion? Brian’s comment #41 seems sufficient to me, but to others commenting here it does not seem sufficient. Dr. Paul lives his definition of family values, but at the same time he doesn’t think Americans need government to morally steer them in any direction in matters of religion and family values.
Brian, I wish you peace and happiness.
I don’t have an opinion either way (I know you’re thinking – awww c’mon everyone has an opinion – and really I don’t at this point in my life). I “used” to have an opinion until I realized that God doesn’t live in a box. Now my opinion is more based on what is right for me and what I will have to answer to the Lord for MYSELF.
You know in your heart what is right and what you will have to answer for. Fight for THAT. Fight for your HEART.
@ freefrompt: Thank you so much for your kind words and good advice. :)
Brian,
I’m gay too and found this thread because I am also searching for the answer you seek. He is dodging the issue and while I understand he is doing so because he doesn’t think it is a federal issue at all, that doesn’t make it alright to do so.
If he is going to dodge the issue because he believes marriage should be left up to the states, then he should dodge the issue altogether regarding everything to do with marriage, which includes adoption.
As for the belief that the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seems to be working well, I think slavery worked pretty well for the white people, too. The problem that needs to be address is that it is NOT working out well for gay people and “don’t ask, don’t tell” is the tip of the iceburg.
If he is up for leaving marriage to the states, then all federal laws that have anything whatsoever to do with marriage should be invalidated. It is unreasonable to think that is ever going to happen. Now that we are in the situation we are in, what is Ron Paul going to do to provide me equal rights until it is that our Federal government gets out of the marriage business completely?
I don’t want special rights. I want equal ones.
@ Don: Amen, brother! :)
I started reading more about Ron Paul. On the issue of gay rights, I feel like Dr. Paul is neither particular supportive nor unsupportive of gay rights. He supports concepts and principles.
About gays in the military – he said he supported addressing disruptive behavior be it heterosexual or homosexual, but not the blanket policy over a particular group.
Regarding the Texas sodomy laws: he said Texas should be able to do what it wants, including enforcing the sodomy laws on it’s books, because that is a state’s right.
Therefore I strongly believe ( not knowing if he’s actually said this ) that if a state decides to recognize same-sex marriage, Dr. Paul is going to say: Ok great that is your right to do so.
This is in stark contrast of say, the current admnistration, that constantly imposes it’s own radical right-wing will over States’ own pursuits and decisions.
carson grey, I think you are right about him. He feels the same way about abortion. For example, the New York State Assembly passed a law in 1970 making abortion legal in New York State–that is the state’s right. That is the way the system is designed. It doesn’t have to matter what the president himself opines.
@ Carson Grey: I shudder to think of the state of civil rights in this country if each state were allowed to define their own laws regarding racial equality. That’s more than enough reason for me to support rulings by the Supreme Court.
Its easy for someone living in a liberal state to agree with RP’s views on state rights, but a little more difficult for those of us planted in the south.
Some candidates state their beliefs and positions and make a clear connection between the two. I believe this is how most people connect with candidates and relate to them. Some candidates are fearful that their beliefs will make them less popular, so they are evasive about their personal feelings and instead talk about policy positions. They are being purposely evasive and disengenious. When I recognize this in myself and others, it becomes easy for me to see who is an advocate for me and my life and who isn’t. (admittedly, there aren’t a lot of candidates who are). IMHO, our beliefs are what will dictate our actions most often and is the best indicator of how a person will behave in office. Huckabee and Hunter have been consistent in conveying how they feel on the subject of homosexuality and have been consistent in every issue related to this. We know they will fight against ANY attempt to normalize homosexuality. I respect them for being principled and consistent. I see this as truth. Ron Paul, like Guliani, Thompson and McCain all refuse to state their beliefs but rather make their position on homosexuality clear by their absence of clarity. They are uncomfortable with normalizing homosexuals but don’t want to offend or appear too religious (too right).
I think as homosexuals we need to be honest about who our advocates are and stop looking so deeply for threads of information that we weave into reality. With so few advocates running, it’s easy to play that game but it leads us away from the truth. Kucinich, Hunter and Huckabee are the only ones who have made their beliefs clear and are consistent in their proposed policies. Scariest of all is Romney who has so convincingly played both sides!
There is always hope but it is not truth. In the vein of hope, i think of Edwards who has been the most forthcoming with his personal struggle between his beliefs on homosexuality, where they came from and the idea of civil rights.
I’m not advocating for any one candidate as I have no idea who I think is best to run this country. I just think, in light of the discussion on Ron Pauls stand on homosexuality, we can be more honest about it. I don’t get the gay warm and fuzzys with Ron Paul. I don’t get that he is struggling with his beliefs. I get that he doesn’t want to offend me. (not there’s anything wrong with that!)
peace.
Fightingwindmills – while you original post was from November on employeers and their comfort, I wanted to respond, as it was a very surprising question. I think of it this way, for the longest time the executives of companies were all men, they did not want women to become executives because they were uncomfortable with women in managerial positions. Whether justified or not, they did not feel women could do the job. The reason for having job discrimination protection is so that people can work and are not held back due to issues beyond their control. Someone who does a desk job, but is in a wheel chair might make people uncomfortable, should they not have any opportunties because of others’ prejudice. I understand that people often allow religon be an excuse for discrimination, but I find it unreasonable to force people not to work or for them not to have jobs because of their religion. Sure in a big city they may be able to find other work, but there are many towns in this country where no out gay person would get a job anywhere due to “comfort”. Should they be forced to move? If the shoe were on the other foot and people refused on a regular basis to hire a person simply because they are Christian, is that acceptable?
Mark, thanks for addressing what I said. I believe in social justice, however I think it is difficult to legislate someone into being comfortable. There are situations that I am uncomfortable in until I have a change of heart due to close proximity with someone or an epiphany due to something I’ve read or heard. Do you see what I mean? A law will not take my prejudice away. It is not the kind of “fix” that heals society’s injustices. I think employers should be able to decide when someone is not a good fit for their business.
When my husband first immigrated to the US he wasn’t hired because he was timid in interviews and he kept pushing the applications over to me to fill out for him rather than trying to do it himself (he doesn’t like to write because he’s left handed and his English wasn’t good at the time). He didn’t get hired until we learned the right way to present him to employers and found an employer that was sympathetic to Hispanic immigrants. But we didn’t cry foul and take it to the court system. There were things that he was able to change so maybe that’s not a good comparison to an out gay person who can’t change. But nevertheless he takes the prejudice that he faces head-on by being friendly and hard working and forming personal relationships with co-workers who are interested in getting to know him. There aren’t special rules in the company that apply only to him. That’s what I meant–I don’t know if special legislation that protects employees is the correct way to overcome prejudices. I accept that you may disagree with me. I hope my comments do not come off as offensive since they are not intended to be.
fightingwindmills, japan daphne here. This blog was my introduction to you and your thoughtful and expressive views which led me to your wonderful blog.
Your comment regarding legislating “comfort” is an interesting one and I agree with it. Though when I was reading about your husbands struggle getting a job, I couldn’t help but think that his skillset was the sticking point and not so much the immigrant part. You sounded as though you were sensitive to this part and I am wondering if you had contemplated the other possibility? I may have read you wrong and apologize if I did.
I also do not want or feel its appropriate for the gov’t to get into the business of legislating “comfortable”… but… I believe the gov’t should DEFINITELY be in the business of legislating justice – and one persons justice is another ones comfort :O. I feel it’s important to make the distinction between private vs public and allow private organizations, businesses, etc. to discriminate (favor is an alternate way of saying it) if they want to, with the hope that people will ultimately be the force of change. A private golf course should be able to exclude women if they want. A public course that benefits from gov’t incentives, breaks and funding, should not. Being a woman imho, is not a comfort issue but a justice one.
This view does however get sticky when it comes to religion – which is precisely why I feel that the separation between gov’t and religion is important. Churches have tax favored status, but have been conferred a legal right (right to perform legal marriage) AND they discriminate regularly… which is where I am conflicted. Somehow, a churches view on who is suitable for marriage is what is dictating the law. It saddens and hurts me deeply that my church cannot marry me though there are over 1000 churches where I could go that would welcome this request. Is this an issue of justice or comfort? Morality or opinion?
This is why I am somewhat concerned about Ron Pauls view on homosexuality. (and you thought I was off topic!) I’m a Christian and I believe the athiest should be treated with the same respect and fairness as me under the law. Not all Christians believe this and that scares me on so many levels. There are no simple answers to this and a thousand differing opinions. Hope … and pray.
So… I think I’m done for now. Whew. I’m tired. :)
Oyasuminasai and HAPPY (and safe) NEW YEAR!!!!!
Daphne, Thank you for the compliment. :) I agree with you about my husband’s situation. It was not about his ethnicity, but rather about his lack of skills and experience. That’s what I am getting at. People who perceive themselves as victims will say “I didn’t get hired because I am (fill in the blank)” but people who perceive themselves as fully human and worthy of a great life will keep trying. I thought that Ron Paul saw everyone as equal and deserving of equal enforcement of our laws. Maybe his campaign is all an illusion. I hope not. I know it is an extremely complicated and sensitive issue. I agree with you that ultimately people interacting with people bring about change.
@ Daphne: Very eloquently stated! Do you have a blog? I’d like to read some more of your writing.
@ fightingwindmills: I totally understand what you’re saying, but I am still convinced that we need laws protecting minorities in the workplace.
Imagine if a business refused to hire your husband simply because he is Hispanic, even if he is more qualified for the position than any other applicants. That should be illegal. The reluctant business owner may still come up with some excuse to keep from getting in trouble, but at least the public would be aware that the government has taken a strong stance against racial discrimination in the workplace.
Now, consider my own situation. I worked at my place of employment for several years before coming out to my coworkers and employers. Considering they were (and still are) devout Christian conservatives, I ran the real risk of being fired for revealing my true sexuality. I remember the overwhelming sense of relief when my boss said that I didn’t have to worry about losing my job. Others aren’t so fortunate, and I believe there should be laws protecting homosexuals from such discrimination.
Ron Paul certainly sees things differently. Although he claims to see everyone as equal under the law, we all know that isn’t reality. Unless your white, Christian, male, and heterosexual, the odds are stacked against you.
Great conversation, guys! :)
Unfortunately, “states rights” can’t explain away Ron Paul’s support for the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA does two things:
1) Says Alabama doesn’t have to honor Massachusetts marriages (arguably federalist or “states rights”), and
2) Says the federal government (IRS, INS or ICE or whatever they’re calling Immigration this week, etc.) doesn’t have to honor Massachusetts marriages — definitely anti-federalist and anti-states rights.
Even the author of DOMA, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, admits that this second part of DOMA is anti-federalist. But Ron Paul still refuses to make the same admission. Instead, he says he would have voted for DOMA had he been in Congress in 1996.
I disagree with Ron Paul that “states rights” and liberty are synonymous. But I could at least respect his “states rights” excuse if he came out for a partial repeal of DOMA (the part that bans federal recognition of Massachusetts marriages), as most of the Democrats have now done.
Of course the Libertarian candidates support a total repeal of DOMA, as you can see in the Outright Libertarians candidate scorecard:
http://www.outrightusa.org/OL2008Scorecard.pdf
Ron Paul voted for the so-called “Marriage Protection Act” which was the neocon Republicans’ attempt to prevent judges from even hearing challenges to laws banning gay marriage.
Here’s his speech to the House in support of the anti-gay MPA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
Because of the dangers to liberty and ***traditional values*** posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. ***Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.***
States’ rights and sodomy laws
Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”[164]
Here’s an excerpt from the Ron Paul Newsletter, published in the 1980’s and 1990’s with RP’s name across the header. He now claims that he didn’t write the articles slamming blacks, gays, and Jews, but since most of the material went uncredited, most readers would assume that he wrote them.
Source
When we talk about marriage, we’re talking about two things: the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage, and the CIVIL (legal) institution of marriage. These two things should be separate. Religious traditions vary widely, and their specific (largely illogical) moral commandments on things like marriage often conflict each other. If we are truly to be a land of religious freedom, we must be a land that keeps church and state away from each other completely.
Thus, it is perfectly logical that one of two things should be done, in the name of individual rights: either
a) gay marriage should be a legally protected right, thus guaranteeing that everyone can marry
or
b) marriage should not be a legally protected right at ALL, and people should not receive marriage benefits.
Since Mr. Paul hasn’t chosen Option B, why isn’t he choosing Option A?
I think it’s fairly clear that he’s a conservative homophobe with the rest of them.
Excuse me, Anja Flower, but Dr. Paul believes that social movements shake up the status quo much more effectively than legislation does. If you believe in gay marriage you should talk to people in your circle of influence about it and do your best to spread your message socially rather than counting on a politician to legislate your way of life. First comes our society’s acceptance of the idea, then later comes the repeal of current legislation which favors heterosexuals. Since Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the IRS that will do a lot to even the score, don’t you think?
fightingwindmills:
Leaving Ron Paul’s Libertarian views on government finances aside, but mob rule is no kind of justice at all. It is our government’s duty to legislate and enforce law according to what is RIGHT, not what is popular. Surely Dr. Paul would not approve of a politician in the 1800s who sought to keep slavery legal, simply because it was popular with his constituency? Surely he would not be happy with a politician in the ’60s who opposed civil rights legislation simply because a significant part of The People was against it?
Ah, but he would.
And that is what frustrates me about this view: The People do not always know what is best for them, and are rarely willing to vote for anything that scares them but makes their neighbor’s life much, much better. This is why we have representational, not direct, democracy. It’s a flawed and frustrating system, but it works better than the alternatives.
i guess if i don’t need a federal goverment as Ron Paul proposes then i don’t need a president so why should i vote for him. He has some valid points but i think his approach does not support unity but rather a “everybody doing whatever they want” mentality which often causes more division then people coming together to solve major issues. If he is so in love with state goverment he should stay out of the presidential race which -i hate to say is a federal thing that effects every person regardless of which state you live in— he is full of contradictions but i wish him well as an individual but not as my president.
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18013
Check out the first comment on this article.
@ fightingwindmills: That’s very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
It seems Brian that you are somewhat biased against Dr. Paul. You agreed with Matt and the others in the first paragraph: and that is essentially libertarianism philosophy. You had only kind words to share in that philosophy and those words are the personal philosophy of Ron Paul that he has expressed through out 20 years. However throughout the course of the thread, you tried to dig up little pieces of evidence to try to discredit Dr. Paul’s believe in Libertarianism and miss the forest for the weeds. It didn’t matter how many Ron Paul supporters tried to explain to you that it “IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS TO TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE.” In an age when the government is growing far to large.
Hypothetically, if he did have a personal preference, he still has shown over many years that it is the human right that is of utmost importance and he has also shown that your personal business is not the business of the federal government. It is even obvious that he feels it is not his business as a representative of Congress either.
Your rights as an American are more relevant than the scope of our governments’ interference.
Yet, still you reject Dr. Paul. It seems you should be honest with posters. You are simply pining for attention, not your personal support. (Which we would be honored to have.) If you are rejecting Lady Liberty because she is on t.v. calling for general public support, and not personally phoning you and flirting with you by telling you EVERY single thing you want to hear; you are STILL rejecting giving aid to Liberty.
Actually, Athan, my original post shows that I was already feeling let down by Ron Paul’s stance on this issue. The more I read and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I did not agree with him. Still, I eventually decided to support his bid for the presidency and placed a banner in my sidebar, only to remove it a few weeks later when I came to my senses.
And if having an open discussion about politics means I’m “pining for attention”, then I guess you’ve fallen into my evil trap. ;)
Paul opposes federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman. Paul believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states. For this reason, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. 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.” Paul stated that “Americans understandably fear” the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices [or] orientation” and “any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.” If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage.
In 1999, he voted for a House amendment (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) to prohibit the federal funding of joint adoption of children to individuals unrelated by blood or marriage. If passed, the amendment would have prevented same-sex couples adopting children in the District of Columbia because no government money would be allowed to be spent on vetting prospective same-sex parents or registering such adoptions.
While I am speaking as a gay person as well, I am troubled by this fact as well. Dr. Paul has made statements that bode very well with me in terms of foreign policies and economic policies, among other things. But this is fairly troubling. I understand his christian faith has a lot to do with his view on homosexuality, but he also does give it fairly little leeway to determine his actual political policies on homosexuality. He bides by the personal freedoms as faithfully as many social libertarians I have met.
However, the problem that I have is his near non-existant move to give gays actual protections. At the very least he will impose any restrictions enacted upon the group themselves, and for that alone he has my respect and, in a weird way, fascination.
But, last I heard anyway, he still thinks Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a ‘decent policy’. Understandably I do agree with his point that it is silly to single out homosexual affairs especially when heterosexual affairs in the military is so pressing. (high rape statistics are a real concern for women in the military)
But what I don’t like, and this is where I lose track with many Libertarians, is that he like many others does not seem to be in full possession of the facts. I chalk it up to the fact that there truly are more pressing things to worry about. But what I disapprove of in don’t ask don’t tell is the countless members of the service are pushed out because of their sexuality who were outted, underline, against their WILL. Dishonorable discharges for servicemen and women for letting slip an I love you or two in correspondence with their lovers is caught in military monitoring of their communications and out the door they go. Men and women who would otherwise stand for exemplary employees of the military with valuable skills, at a time when we apparently need soldiers according to both democratic and republican fervor, are being lost thanks directly to this policy.
So henceforth, I hope Dr. Paul considers providing badly needed protections to gays everywhere, rather than letting states turn dictatorial in matters regarding their lives. In many places, especially in the midwest, the gay grassroots are not large enough to compete with the popular stranglehold of christian fundamentalists who would undoubtedly pass into legislations that would undermine the rights of Gays and actively oppress or repress them within the states that they live. Virginia, most recently, is a good example of this with their stance against employment discrimination regulations to prevent homophobia.
At the very least he has made an effort to at least strip away some of the antagonism and try to focus on more sensible issues.