For the last several months, this post has consistently been my most popular entry - fueled by countless search strings containing the words “Ron Paul” and “gay rights.” The graph above shows the daily visits for that specific post, and it’s clear that interest has increased substantially in recent weeks.
This is all the evidence that I need that it would be beneficial for Ron Paul to specifically address this issue and to quit hiding behind his weak argument about creating special classes. Whether he admits it or not, we aren’t all treated as equals in this country, and if we were to change over to his system of allowing states to dictate civil rights, then anyone in a minority group would stand to lose a great deal.
9 Comments
Brian, you might find it amusing that on Univision.com’s bio page of Ron Paul they say he is “a favor de los matrimonios entre homosexuales.”
http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1227376
@ fightingwindmills: If I translated that correctly, then that’s interesting. I wonder if RP knows about it?
Well, I’ve told “him” several times about it (just through the contact form) and I’ve not gotten a response. I think they are really busy and have to pick their battles.
@ fightingwindmills: Maybe RP decided that most of us can’t read it anyway.
Brian, you’re probably right. But also I think he is avoiding the issue in English since there is no mention of his position on any “gay issues” on his “issues” page at all. And by posting about it here I have foiled their plans to avoid it! I’m going to keep insisting with emails to the campaign. (((Hugs)))
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/01/21/ron-paul-on-martin-luther-king/
Now that they’ve opened up the blog at headquarters for comments, there is a lively discussion going on. The word “gay” gets blocked out, but if you can think of another way to phrase it you can join in on the comments section there.
@ fightingwindmills: Why on earth does the word “gay” get blocked? More evidence that RP is homophobic?
No, I don’t think it’s that. I think they don’t want people to use it in hate speech or use it carelessly. You know how some people say, “Oh, that idea is gay,” and mean that it’s a worthless idea.
I did get a response last night from Dan McCarthy, the blogger in charge of the blog at headquarters. He wrote, “Dr. Paul does not favor amending the Constitution to define marriage; he wants to leave the issue to the states and limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts (as the Constitution allows) to prevent the federal bench from defining or redefining marriage for the whole country.
It looks like the Univision statement is a mistranslation, as you pointed out to me a few days ago. We have someone taking a look over the whole Univision transcript, because we’ve heard there are other mistakes as well.”
And I wrote to him, “Thanks for writing me back and helping me with those two requests (the Salatin endorsement and the marriage issue at Univision). I still don’t understand how Dr. Paul can dismiss marriage as an issue for the states. My husband and I got married in Japan and he got an American visa and was able to immigrate because of our marriage. What if I had gotten married to a woman in another country and wanted to get an American visa for her so that she would be able to immigrate as my partner? Marriage is a federal issue because it is tied to immigration law. Also my husband and I are an example of an interracial couple. Interracial marriage was once against the law in Virginia and Justice Warren led the Supreme Court in requiring that Virginia recognize the marriage of an interracial couple who married in D.C. but wanted to live in Virginia. I admire Justice Warren but I fear that Dr. Paul might dismiss him as one of those ‘activist judges’ who legislates from the bench. Well, anyway, that’s what I think.”
I’m trying, Brian, I really am!
@ fightingwindmills: YOU ARE AWESOME! I love your response!!