I must confess that I’m truly baffled by the level of support I’m seeing among my friends for presidential candidate Ron Paul. While the number of Paul fans in my circles is relatively small, he nonetheless enjoys the highest level of support from my LGBT-identified and equality-supporting friends out of all the non-LGBT friendly candidates. In addition, the Ron Paul supporters I know tend to be passionately, often blindly, devoted to their candidate, steamrolling over any criticisms of Paul no matter how legitimate and simply dismissing out of hand those they cannot outargue.
To many people, Ron Paul’s sound bites are very appealing: less government. Individual liberty. Legalization of marijuana and other drugs. (Yes, I think this has a lot to do with the support Paul receives, especially among young people and college students.) Unfortunately, it’s been my experience that most supporters of Ron Paul stop there and either don’t dig any further or ignore the digging done by others. This alarms me, because Ron Paul is very, very, VERY anti-gay.
On his best days, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” position regarding marriage equality. On his worst, he has specifically bragged about his efforts to obstruct and attack LGBT people’s civil rights and gone out of his way to slander and mischaracterize LGBT people.
Setting aside the generally disturbing deployment of the “states’ rights” argument at all, given its shameful history as a justifier of slavery and Jim Crow laws in this country, I’d like to ask Mr. Paul (as well as those who profess to support both Ron Paul and LGBT equality) why LGBT couples should be the only Americans whose marriages are subject to the “states’ rights” standard. Why should only LGBT couples, but not straight couples, have to seek the approval of our state legislatures and/or citizenry in order to marry the person we love? Why should our marriages be the only ones that dissolve when we cross state lines? And why is this an acceptable state of affairs, especially given the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all American citizens?
Yeah, many of my Paul-supporting friends will say, but that’s just your opinion.
Which brings up another point: the difference between opinion and fact. Maybe it’s just me, but in this era of false equivalency memes, it appears as though this distinction is being increasingly overlooked. A fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence, while an opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence, usually taking the form of a subjective statement that can be emotionally based or result from a person’s individual interpretation of a fact.
FACT: Ron Paul’s presidential campaign issued a flyer that boasted about the candidate’s efforts to introduce legislation that would remove challenges to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act from the federal court system.
FACT: Ron Paul’s Iowa state director is Mike Heath, a long-term Christian right activist who formerly served as the board chairman of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known as “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”
FACT: Ron Paul has a long history of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.
FACT: As state above, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” approach to marriage, but interestingly, only for LGBT couples.
FACT: Ron Paul said, “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ 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.”
FACT: Ron Paul opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers.
Based on the above examples and so many others, there is no way one can honestly characterize Ron Paul as anything other than anti-gay. Of course LGBTs and supporters of LGBT equality, like all voters, can and should vote for whomever they choose. I am neither disputing that right nor attempting in any way to tell anyone how to vote. What I am saying, however, is that LGBT and pro-LGBT voters should at least acknowledge that a vote for a candidate like Ron Paul is a vote for someone who opposes their rights.
Ron Paul New Hampshire flyer
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/380017_2331987872821_1643508752_1790894_450256977_n.jpg
Thanks for the link! I actually linked to a JoeMyGod post about this flyer in this entry. :-)
It’s true that Ron Paul is a very imperfect candidate, and gay rights is one of those issues that I don’t agree with him on. I don’t think he’s a very good representative of the libertarian ideology, and I wish that somebody like Gary Johnson (who supports FULL marriage equality) got the press that Ron Paul does. However, from a libertarian perspective, Ron Paul is still much better than any of the other major candidates in the race. At least he would let states determine their marriage laws — unlike the other Republican candidates who would make a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And he supports civil liberties that affect us all. If Obama and the Republicans have their way, the government will be able to spy on and indefinitely detain American citizens, and that affects all Americans, not just LGBTs.
I think this article in the Guardian says it all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
Don’t be fooled folks. He’s at least as bad as the rest of them!
I have to say…this country has already been spying on us and indefinitely detaining us. All that happened recently was that now it’s legal, or more legal to do that.
So I have to ask:
1. What is more likely to happen, me being detained indefinitely, or me needing birth control (which I have since early high school due to PCOS) and being discriminated against in the work place(which has already happened to me at several jobs, usually involving my sex, gender, gender identity or sexuality, hooray for Texas) ?
2. If they were already doing it when it was illegal, and we already knew and allowed it to continue, how does making it legal change anything? Nothing has changed. They can just do it legally now.
Quite frankly, I understand that being detained and tortured is very very bad. I would certainly rather lose the pill than be waterboarded. But what is more likely? Will you give up all your rights and protections we have fought for to most likely not even end a practice that is less likely to happen to you, and can still happen to you legal or not?
We need to change the powers we give our president, not vote for a racist, homophobic crazy person and hope that he takes his own power away.
PS. You know what…actually, I think I’d rather be waterboarded than lose the pill. Yeah…actually. Because losing the pill will oppress and disadvantage every woman, including myself if I’m ever released. The pill, among other birth control methods and abortion services, means enough to me that personally, I would rather be waterboarded than see women lose their rights to their bodies. Either way, both are cruelty, both are oppressive and totalitarian, but I think I’m brave enough to give up myself to save the freedom the women before me gave everything to give to me.
One of the scariest things on the New Hampshire pamphlet is his ideas on schooling:
“Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda”
Just because you have managed to spawn (like almost everyone else in the adult population), it does not automatically make you an expert on child development.
I know many people who have become parents who are perfectly ignorant, and are barely capable of looking after their own children, never mind having a hand in what happens to other’s.
Very anti-gay? Even if he personally believes something, he is adamantly for individual rights regardless of who you are. Congratulations on a poorly researched biased article.
Hope you’re not getting paid for this.
I see you ignored all the research Chris. I bet you’re one of the Paulbots mentioned in the article.
@Rainbow: and there are a LOT of them…
Believe me many our like Chris and how much you want to bet he isn’t gay Paulbots seem to finding any criticism of their cult leaders and descend like locust. John spelled it out with facts and Chris comes back with that stupid answer.
Reuben you might be correct that Paul is the best of the Republicans though I believe ultimately Mitten would be better. I think he is pandering to the right. Having said that it’s like saying which pig is the prettiest. I have been one of the biggest critics of Obama. I argued with many on here about him. But he has done much over the last year to get my vote. I am still annoyed that he hasn’t supported marriage equality but he is further than any of the major Republican candidates.
Doesn’t Paul support removing the federal government from marriage completely, not just for gay couples?
I mean, he obviously would never succeed at accomplishing that, but I thought I read that it was his position.
I really haven’t done that much research into any of ‘em, so I could be wrong. Insane, evil, stupid–that’s all the information I need.
Pat,
That is what he says but you notice he hasn’t proposed one piece of legislation to do that. Imagine that.
Also note his statement that he would have voted for DOMA had he been in congress at the time.
At the risk of sounding spammy…
THIS is why I’m supporting Fred Karger! If you’re going to the polls today, remember – the progressive choice! Jobs, equality, freedom & choice. A vote for Karger is a vote against the established bigotry of today’s “social conservative” (scare quotes intended as it’s a joke of conservatism) Republican party.
You know, if Paul only had a couple connections to bigoted groups or only had one bigoted view, perhaps it could be dismissed or he could be given the benefit of the doubt. The thing is this, he is not only a bigot against LGBT, but he supports regressive policies towards people of color, women, and disabled people too, also the poor and the elderly. He has stated on numerous occasions, he’d not have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nor the Voting Rights of 1965, and has stated that yes, businesses should indeed be able to discriminate against whomever they please without gov’t interference. He has also stated he was opposed to the Federal Disabilities Act of 1990, and further feels business should be permitted to discriminate against disabled people and public schools against special needs children. He has gone as far in defending an insurance company’s right to deny essential medical treatment to autistic children, comparing autistic children to “burned down houses.” He also wants to remove the Dept of Education, the only federal entity which actually enforces the Federal Disabilities Act and ensures public schools nationwide comply with the Fed Disabilities Act. He also thinks abortion rights should be left to the states, and if a woman lives in a state where abortion is outlawed, but is raped or molested by her own uncle, then tough, she gets to be a broodmare for her attacker, and carry that fetus to term, then undergo the rigors of childbirth. Ron Paul and people of his ilk use the term “states rights” which used to be code to racists, a kind of wink wink and nod, for people who hated black people, for politicians to let them know, they intended to uphold Jim Crow state laws. Now it’s code, EVERYONE understands, the haters to whom the politician is winking and everyone else, that this politician supports bigotry and understands, in order for it to pass Constitutional muster, it must be done at the state level. Ron Paul and his followers want to “take their country back,” and “go back to the original Constitution,” to the regressive society of America in 1786, wherein only wealthy white landowners could vote, and black people were slaves, women couldn’t vote and were also property, disabled people were thrown in asylums, and guess what all you angry, loud bitter straight white stoners who love Ron Paul? YOU also wouldn’t have been allowed to vote either. Ron Paul has a long illustrious history of racism, misogyny, homophobia, social Darwinism, where he thinks the elderly and disabled should be left to rot and die, and where the poor can just dig in the trash for discarded dog food cans and try to lick out the remains that Fido didn’t get in his bowl. No thanks, of the Republican field, as much as his anti-war rhetoric feels good to liberals, not much else he has to say should appeal to anyone with any kind of a conscience who thinks all people have the right to the same protections and rights as all other Americans. Liberty? Yea, for Ron Paul, that means only wealthy, STRAIGHT, white landowners, and to the rest of us, he’s the cranky old coot on the porch with his shotgun and 6 houndawgs hollerin’ “BOY, git off my lawn, now, ya heah, or I’ll shoot!”
I was one of those gay men who supported Ron Paul, glad I did some digging and came to my senses.
I wrote this to a gay friend who has urged me to support Ron Paul:
Shel, there is a great deal to be said for Ron Paul. We agree on a lot of issues—the failure of the war on Drugs, for example. But I can’t say a lot for many of his supporters—not referring to you. They are the same old right wingers they always were.
He is neither a friend nor supporter of gay people. Nor is he truly libertarian. He appears to be one of those people who really don’t give a s**t about gay people one way or the other, and truly has no principles when it comes to them. He just doesn’t care because it doesn’t affect him.
His position on gay marriage is simply wrong, constitutionally and legally. It is not merely a state’s rights issue– not just because states don’t have rights, they have POWERS– but a federal issue as well. That’s the full faith and credit clause, Social security, and a host of other rights, benefits, and responsibilities. Had he said, “I support the right of gay couples to marry in the states that permit it. I support the rights of states not to authorize it within their borders. However, the constitution says that other states and the Federal Government must honor those marriages.” Though I would disagree with it, I could respect that position, because it would truly be principled. But to pretend the feds have nothing to do with marriage is just willful blindness. By his arguments in this matter, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, but not by Virginia. By his arguments, Kansas was right and Brown v. BOE was incorrectly and anti-constitutionally decided. Both things were bad for our country, and bad for our Constitution. There are hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who are affected by this.
His arguments about the permissibility of sodomy laws as merely a states rights issue is also not tenable. He cannot both simultaneously claim that as you say: “But most important for Americans, he wants to leave us alone, to allow us to live our lives our own way” and that sodomy laws—laws which says the state can come into my bedroom and arrest me—are perfectly acceptable. This “acceptability” is a virtual impossibility under the Fourth Amendment—probable cause, search and seizure, that sort of thing. Especially when the Texas law singled out gay people but ignored heterosexuals committing the exact same act. As Justice O’Connor wrote in Lawrence, that just ain’t right. And of course, sodomy laws have been used to justify all the other anti-gay laws. That asshat Scalia admitted as much in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas. Without those sodomy laws, there is no longer ANY legal justification for treating gay people differently– not that THOSE laws were any sort of a justification.
He has both supported Don’t ask Don’t Tell as a “decent policy”, but voted to repeal it. One of the few places I could respect his opinion.
Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s no more a marriage protection act than was DOMA a marriage defense act. The fact that he supported DOMA and sponsored the MPA—both of them dishonest, outright LYING titles in true 1984 style double-speak, says a great deal about his worldview and his morality. Failure to call a spade a spade is the hallmark of the True American Politician. That he would remove judicial review from the purview of so-called “activist” judges speaks worlds about his real view of the constitution and the Separation of Powers and the stare decis of (I believe) Marbury v. Madison.
It all boils down to this for me. I’m not really a single issue voter, though I might appear to be one, and it certainly is a factor for me. But I truly believe this: there is not a single justification for treating gay human beings differently than heterosexual human beings, especially by the government. I have not yet heard a single answer to that question which does not boil down to 1) I hate queers. 2) My religion tells me it’s my duty to hate queers, but maybe I’ll call it love in case you can’t tell the difference. 3) I might be queer.
And if you (not meaning you personally) believe that such a justification does exist, but cannot have a coherent logical, factual, principled answer as to why—and no one does– then I have to question your ability to lead, your morality, your compassion, your generosity of spirit, and your intelligence.
I’m not thrilled with Obama on lots of issues. But I will take Obama any day over just about anyone in the Republican Party. I’m not thrilled with the Democrats on a lot of issues, but I also believe the only party worse for this country than the Democrats are the Republicans. The Republican Party has declared itself repeatedly to be an enemy of my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness. I’m not going to support people like that, ever.
Our porcine governor in NJ just declared again that he would veto a marriage equality bill if it passed the legislature, which it would, since we now have enough votes, even from republicans. As soon as this Harkonnen is out of office, or dies from a heart attack, whichever comes first, we *will* have marriage equality in New Jersey.
And of course the current occupant of the White House and his VP are on the record as opposed to SSM.
They’re also on record as being opposed to attempts to change both the state and federal constitutions to ban it and are refusing to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, howeecarr.
Until the author grasps the distinction between group rights and individual rights, LGBT support for RP will continue to baffle him until that intellectual hurdle is overcome. Being a Consitutionalist, Ron Paul understands the importance of the equal protections under the law as noted in the 14th Amendment (which states should not violate either) and that we don’t receive our rights as groups, but rather as individuals. Our rights are not “granted” to us by the government or pieces of paper, but instead come from our Creator and are inalienable. We are born with our rights. We don’t look to government for “rights” when we *ourselves* own them. And if equality is our true goal, then Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party that grasps this fundamental concept.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia all come into existence when we categorize people as groups. This is what Ron Paul is trying to get through to you. You’re simply conflating Paul’s stances on group rights vs. individual rights as him being anti-gay. This inability to grasp the concept of individual rights equally for everyone across the board baffles me when government itself has been LGBT’s biggest oppressor by categorizing and marginalizing us into a group. If you sadly keep believing that you get rights as a group instead of as an individual, then you’ll spend your entire life riding in the back of HRC’s bus.
Ron Paul might not support gay marriage 100%, but neither does Obama, and look at the LGBT support he got in ’08. The article says he has a long history of “racist, homophobic, and anti-semitic comments”. Other than his news letter that he has dissavowed and says he didn’t write, I have never heard a racist, homophobic, or anti-semitic comment come from his mouth. The article says he has an anti-gay voting record, but he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and the repeal of DADT. As for DOMA, many Democrats voted for that and still support it, and it is considered the moderate line to say “leave it up to the states” on that issue, as both Obama and Hillary have said that “states can decide that for themselves” on gay marriage ( Obama commenting on his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, Hillary said it on Ellen Degeneres ). So, if Ron Paul is anti-gay, so are almost all the candidates the LGBT community has supported in the past ( which is probably somewhat true, but maybe for now it’s best to support the candidate best equiped to advance gay rights, and I think Dr. Paul might be as good as anyone else for that this election cycle ).
One big difference Justin.
Obama acutally DOES support us, and for political reasons has to pretend he is not totally on board. As one New York Magazine article put it, and I parahprase, Obama will continue to pretned not to support gay marriage till after the election.
This is a sensible political move on his part. And he has done more for gay rights than any other president.
Dr Paul is an opponant of gay rights. Pure and simple.
PS. I don’t generally like to sound…harsh. It seldom works to change peoples minds, but sometimes, it is called for.
The man is running for the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And he
a) wrote some nasty, vile, heinous s**t, which would make him unfit.
OR
b) in a newsletter bearing HIS NAME, he let someone else write some nasty, vile, heinous s**t, which means he is an UTTERLY unfit manager.
c) some folks seem to love his libertarian streak on SOME issues so much they are blinded to the fact he is a homophobe who will do NOTHING to help Gay rights, VS a sitting President who HAS done MORE for us than EVERY other president combined!!!
No self respecting gay person with a working brain should even be CONSIDERING any other candidate than Obama, and I am a FORMER Republican saying that.
Long and short of it Justin, it’s time to wake up. If you are gay, Paul, a man who named his son after a 4th rate writer and failed philosopher who was proud of being a selfish and self centered c**t, is NOT the candidate any gay person should even be considering.
PS. I chose my words and descriptives very carefully and intentionally there. I wont be retracting or apoligizing for my spot on accuracy in what I wrote above.
NEXT
Justin– I suggest you read my posting above. I actually researched what Paul has to say.
Duchess darlin…we may in theory have individual rights. But, the laws that were in place against us were aimed at (get Ready!) a whole GROUP. And they were called SODOMY LAWS.
A Paul supported a states right to have them.
And we only overturned them with a lot of legal help from…among other groups, the HRC.
Move to the real world sometime…the world of theory just does not cut the mustard, even if it sounds so, so intellectually pure and right.
The Ron Paul crowd is simply the most delusional, politically immature, unsophisticated group of rose-colored gasses wearing dupes I have ever encountered in politics.
I’m not sure whether I should laugh or cry when I hear their absurd musings and fantasies disguised as genuine political dialogue.
Gene,
You were formerly a REPUBLICAN? Then you have no right to be on this site telling us who to vote for! DISGUSTING!!!!! I can’t understand how you could have ever been a Republican, and you have now rendered your entire comment useless.
Ina, I think that Gene’s having come to his senses makes him a more credible source.
Ina, dear.
SOME people grow and learn. Unfortunately, a lot of people who vote republican don’t.
Not that I’m a big fan if the democrats. Us if I have learned anything about politics in the last 43 years since I started viking, it’s this: the only party worse for this country than the democrats are the republicans
Damn dyslexia?
Voting, not Viking. Though the inadvertent error has its own truth.
Gene,
Were you also straight when you voted Republican? Or did you just have a hatred for your own people?
No, I will not vote for Ron Paul. John’s article is spot-on… Ron Paul is an enemy of the LGBT community, no better than Santorum or Bachmann. Simple as that.
Ina, I was stupid, uninformed, and in short, a typical Republican voter; concerned only with my own self, my own money, and me.
I will apologize to the whole planet for my earlier party affiliation for the rest of my life.
A gracious response, Gene.
Eternal aplogies are not required.