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.
144 Comments
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!
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!
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 b