What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.
I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.
Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent.
First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context...
But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass, but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it.
It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?) as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers' ideas as guidance.
Some of the quotes were not only written in a newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it, but were actually signed "Ron Paul," and written in the first person talking about why he voted a certain way. And he's refused to name these mysterious ghostwriters who wrote it.
And when these came up in the 1990s... he didn't claim they weren't him or even disavow them! He just said that they were taken out of context, not that he wasn't responsible for them.
I really don't give a huge crap about what it says about Ron Paul's deepest darkest prejudices--I'm a policy man, myself--but to simply try to shrug it off and say "I disavow these things" while also saying things like the Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Call me unsurprised if people are upset about it.
The Reverend Wright deal is a weak comparison. Something analogous would be if, in Dreams from My Father, Obama had said "I wish a Mao would rise in the United States to give the capitalist running dogs what they deserve." And given what he's given shit for... do you seriously not believe he'd get shit for that? It'd be an instant disqualification, even if the quote were taken out of context or even written by a ghostwriter.
The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has decreed it so.
The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause for disliking Paul as a candidate and perhaps even a person, but as others have pointed out, they are relatively mild as far as political skeletons in the closet go. If the media favored him, they could be easily downplayed as have been countless much more serious missteps and outright crimes by mainstream candidates in the past.
I was personally very disappointed when I found out about the newsletters and disgusted by the idea that Paul would even associate with people who would think manipulating racial tensions for political expediency is morally acceptable. But let's put it in perspective--in the last decades the lies and criminality of the US political class have led to the wrongful deaths of millions, illegal torture, vast illegal wiretapping programs, vast financial fraud and unprecedented transfers of wealth to the very richest people in the world, stripping of civil liberties that have been fundamental since the Magna Carta... need I go on?
How much airtime do we see devoted to examining establishment political figures' complicity in these and laundry lists of other history-making type crimes? I'm sorry, but the idea that Ron Paul's lapse in oversight on some barely-circulated newsletters 15 years ago somehow ranks as 'damning' on the scale of political transgressions is, quite frankly, utter horseshit. This is just continuation of the usual program--distract from the real issues and manipulate public opinion through manufactured divisiveness and tabloid journalism.
You're inappropriately comparing the actions of candidates with people who have actual power. Neither George W. Bush nor John Yoo is running for office. Ron Paul is, and as a non-leadership representative, he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way. He hasn't had the opportunity do things that Bush did. In order to assess him as a candidate, we have to understand how he acted given his opportunities.
Considering how small those opportunities were, a profitable newsletter publishing articles exhibiting this level of inaccuracy and racial animus is meaningful.
First of all, Ron Paul has significant power in congress. He is a member of two important committees and was instrumental, as a recent example, in strengthening the auditing standards for the Federal Reserve. He also has significant ideological influence on the Republican party, whether they like it or not. The rhetoric of the tea party movement was in many ways a direct attempt to co-opt Paul's support. He has used this power in near perfect accordance with his principles, stood against reckless war, attacks on civil liberties, favoritism for Wall St. and special interests, and economic plunder.
There have been plenty of opportunities for Paul to sell out, as there are for every successful politician, and he has rejected these opportunities at every turn. Contrast this with Obama's record: a supporter of the patriot act from the beginning, a friend of Wall Street, a believer in empire, in favor of suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens, in favor of the drug war, tolerant of illegal spying on citizens, tolerant of torture. Obama has broken promises and sold out the American people time and time again. It seems pretty clear who has the better batting average.
Paul is far from perfect, but the only alternative at this point is the status quo or worse for the next four years, and believing in that is a lot more insane and dangerous than any of Paul's most controversial beliefs. In fact, when you look pragmatically at the scope of what Paul would actually be capable of as president, you see that he could only really affect policy in the moderate and generally popular portions of his platform--ending permanent war, ending the drug war, vetoes on overspending. His more 'fringe' positions are well beyond the purview of the executive branch, and his principles explicitly preclude him from overstepping those bounds.
Ron Paul is to be commended for amending auditing standards for the Federal Reserve. However, he still hasn't had an important policy position as compared to his competitors for the presidency (excepting Bachmann). This is not a slight, but it should be acknowledged.
Now, I agree that he has had substantial power rhetorically. He has people who are passionate about what he says; his elucidations and opinions have influenced them, raised money, started conversations, and affected the political agenda. That is why it is disappointing that the very little power he has has been used inappropriately in certain instances. If he hired awful ghostwriters who spread stupidly racist material because he wasn't minding the store, then that is not a good sign that he has successfully managed the one area where he did have meaningful power.
Separately: I think you can critique Obama without mentioning things which seem to me untrue or at least misleading, which I think warrant correction:
- Obama has never (I believe) indicated that he's in favor of suspending habeas for U.S. citizens. There's misinformation around that NDAA does this; it does not. If you're thinking of something else, citation please.
- The U.S. torture debate has mostly revolved around waterboarding and unauthorized treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc. -- none of these are known to have happened under Obama. Some people believe that the Army Field Manual enables other forms of torture; Obama ordered a full review and asked for all torture to be taken out; if you think he missed things, that's a complex judgement call, not a simple issue.
- On several other fronts, like the drug war, Wall Street, etc., Obama has in fact applied the policies he stated--I'm not sure what makes you think he's broken promises or compromised his sincere beliefs in any of these areas. He's not a libertarian (except maybe in comparison to H. Clinton).
"Batting average" is a helpful term to use, but I think you're not using the right denominator: Paul hasn't been up the plate many times, whereas Obama, Gingrich, Romney, even Santorum have had a lot more opportunities to either accomplish something or screw up.
By the way, I'm not arguing generally that you should vote for Obama instead of Paul or whatever. But I am defending this newsletter "scandal" as a still relevant datapoint on Ron Paul. Not definitive, but relevant.
he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way
I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.
As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined.
We get all excited about Presidential election, but at least in theory, the Executive is less important than the other branches.
On the other hand, Congress has ceded so much power to the Executive branch (e.g., giving the EPA, IRS, FDA, etc., so much latitude in defining regulations) that power tilts significantly in that direction -- although not to that office itself, but to that branch.
And I suppose that it's natural to focus on the single individual figurehead, when the power of the Legislature, even if it really is more important as I claim, is more diffuse across all the members of that body.
> I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.
We're evaluating individuals here, not branches of government.
The House is probably the most most important single body in the government, and if we are unhappy with the laws, we should indeed generally hold that body as the first layer of accountability.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of 435 members of the House. He does not chair a committee and has chaired one subcommittee for one year. He heads a congressional caucus--that's good--but it has ~12 members and virtually no record of legislation or other action. Separately he has gotten ~1 bill passed in his career and a very small number of notable amendments. He has not been a decisive vote on virtually any issue.
Many individuals have policy powers vastly exceeding this, including not only (obviously) the president, AG, Supreme Court, and perhaps 100+ Congressional leaders, but also (I would aver) the Cabinet, Federal Reserve Board, OLC, JCs, and dozens or hundreds of others.
I think it's very common for people to treat all members of Congress as if they're the same, but Ron Paul is not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.
Ron Pauls's power comes from his writings and speeches on various principles of governmental power and the economy. If he's been remiss on that exact front--hired famous cranks like Lew Rockwell to ghost for him and then failed to review his work--then he's mismanaged his power. I'm not saying that he's a criminal in the sense that, say, Warren Harding is a criminal, but it's absolutely relevant to his candidacy.
edit: Ron Paul does chair one subcommittee as of Jan 2011--misstated that.
Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excused but Paul isn't:
Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it.
But this is false, he did address it four years ago. I've linked and quoted that statement below. [1]
Also, Sullivan goes on to say "And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters."
You'll have to make your own value judgments here, but I think Obama comes out worse. It's true that Paul profited. However, it seems clear to me that Obama's relationship with the real perpetrator (Wright, in his case) was far closer than Paul's. Obama chose Wright to baptize his daughters, and used Wright's ideas for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. This make me believe that Obama had a close, respectful relationship with Wright, and that some of Wrights ideas molded Obama's own. None of these things can be said of Ron Paul with respect to those newsletters.
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Sounds like many of the biblical prophets to me. It's someone who took his cues from Jeremiah.
I never understood what was the big deal - it's just someone who takes seriously their religion. (And all of his accusations in that quote are factual. The crack epidemic was largely CIA-fueled as a way to funnel money to Central American rebels, and the rest is easy enough to verify.)
he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't
the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't even written by him...then he is one of the cleanest politicians in generations.
While they are scrambling to pick something from 20 years ago that he didn't even write, there are many cases in which he actually came out against racism. It's amazing how that seems to not even matter, but a couple of sentences from a newsletter he didn't write 20 years ago, do.
The new ad from Revolution PAC is pretty powerful. James Williams, a black man, talks about his efforts to get medical attention for his pregnant white wife at a Texas hospital in the 1970s. The crescendo comes when a young doctor named Ron Paul broke through the indifference of the staff to give them the help they needed. Their baby would be stillborn. And Paul paid their medical expenses. Then Williams extols the virtues of Paul — his honesty and willingness to take on the establishment.
So as far as I am concerned, after viewing the physical evidence, I conclude Ron Paul made large sums of money from distributing and claiming at the time to write, hate speech, promoting misogyny, and promoting fringe conspiracy theories, in an effort to scare people into sending him money. Reminds me of how Glenn Beck operates.
Ron Paul's excuses today lead me to conclude he is either lying, or completely incompetent, and would not have the ability to lead a Cabinet effectively. In other words unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
EDIT: I see the downvotes flying in. I provided evidence of the claim. Sorry to see his hero worship is so strong that people will ignore factual hard evidence. Kind of pathetic really. This reminds me of the circlejerks over at Reddit... thought the people over here were a few steps above that base level of ignorance.
let's say you build a user generated content startup. It's one of the projects you built, so after a few months you forget it and go work on another startup. Then while you were 100% focused on your new startup, one of the users posts up some rant on your old one that you barely check.
Should you be held responsible for something put up on a domain that's registered to your name? After all, you made a whole $2 off adsense clicks.
How much money do you think a local ~town/county level newsletter makes anyways? Millions?
Bottom line, is that one lapse of leadership/judgement/what have you is nothing compared to most people...and let's not forget that it was 20 years ago and he has been squeaky clean since then. Which isn't something you can say about any other politician....so either hold others to the same standard...or cut the guy some slack and focus on policy, especially considering the lack of "evidence" in this case.
Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.
The mainstream media works its magic by taking a mural 100 miles square and repeatedly hilighting the same 50 square inches. They do this in order to create the perception that fits their agenda, and ignoring the rest. It's an extremely effective technique. It's very easy to control what people think, not by lying to them, but controlling what they think about.
He's not racist, as long as people of all colors assimilate into his culture. I can see the confusion: people who aren't part of this culture see that as a set of racist, irrational beliefs that lead to stop-and-frisk harassment and profiling in airports, whereas Ron Paul obviously has a cultural fear of people different from himself and doesn't equate that with skin color except by correlation. He doesn't consider this "racism", and thus is offended by the implications.
We disagree on the terms and on whether or not it is a disqualifying feature for the highest office in the land, but we should at least be able to agree that the only evidence we have for what he believes have been the things he's done or said. That he began claiming he never did them when they became politically inconvenient doesn't mean he's changed his mind.
I wouldn't care what he said 20 years ago if he stood up and said, "yes, I said those things. Since then, however, I have spent more time with people from cultures I had previously been isolated from and feared, as many of us do when faced with the unfamiliar. I now appreciate that theses communities have come together in the face of adversity and are an assets to this nation." Instead he claimed that Not Me did it, and looks about as mature as that kid from Family Circus while doing so.
Uh-huh. I've paid attention to Paul just fine, and I can see he's not against Jews at all, unless we want to have a country - you know, like hundreds of other peoples.
Thanks, but I can do without his form of 'tolerance'. Anyone else in the GOP is preferable.
These are not credible at all. These are, when its all said and done, lies used to paint Ron Paul.
The very interesting thing is, why? What is the motivation of such people to bash Paul as a homophobe when there's decades of actions on his part that are anything but? What's the motivation of people to bash Paul as a racist, when he has freely associated with people of every color without any hatred his whole life? When in the 1970s he gave a poor family free medical care because he was a doctor and they couldn't pay? (and it didn't matter to him that they weren't white.)
I'll tell you the motivation. The people attacking paul now do not give a damn about the rights of gay people or about racism... after all, they themselves are racist, and they support a guy-- Obama-- who opposes gay marriage and gay rights and is widely known to be a homophobe, by his actions.
The motivation is that Ron Paul represents a credible threat to change the US federal government to one that protects rights of the people, limits itself from controlling the economy, and lets people be free to pursue their ambitions.
This is very threatening to people whose sole career has been peddling influence.
Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).
Edit: I'm curious to know why anyone would downvote this? When presented with direct evidence, is it really logical to immediately push it away? Oh well...
To the commenter below, if you had read to the second paragraph of the article you would have found this:
'Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.'
I didn't downvote (I don't have enough points yet), but I can already see some problems with that article. For one, it's based on newsletters published 20 years ago which he's repeatedly told the media that he did not authorize to use his name. The only other thing that's trying to stick to Ron Paul in this article is completely based on hearsay. So no, it's not direct evidence.
EDIT: I seriously hope you're not trying to tell me that Ron Paul is a terrible person because one of his supporters favors the death penalty.
He doesn't "favor the death penalty" he calls for the execution of people based on their sexual preference in accordance with Biblical law. This man's endorsement was touted by Paul's Iowa campaign. So yes, I find that offensive and reprehensible; Paul should immediately repudiate the endorsement.
EDIT: In re to nirvana's misreading of my comments below:
> To claim that Ron Paul endorses murdering homosexuals because some random religious guy who does, endorsed his campaign is a lie.
I never said any such thing. I said that Paul, i.e. the Paul campaign is seemingly directly linked to anti-gay sentiment as evidenced by the endorsement of Rev. Kayser they touted on their website. That's repugnant.
Also, I don't appreciate being called a liar: These aren't my opinions. They are confirmable facts. The campaign was endorsed by a person who wants to murder gays. This endorsement was featured on Paul's website. It's deplorable. I'm only sorry you don't feel the same way.
Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more.
He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.
This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level.
He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much.
I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing.
CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion.
He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.
Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments.
Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.
I would like to attempt a thought experiment and see if you could buy this scenario:
Imagine if Ron Paul becomes President (yeah, right, but hang with me) and he does give states the right to do all kinds of things within the constitution. (Side note: I think banning the practice of Islam is unconstitutional due to the first amendment)
So let's say that some Southern states ban abortion and ban gay marriage. That sucks but there is some elegance here that you didn't notice. California is not about to ban abortion or gay marriage, in fact now they have fully promoted gay marriage, and legalized marijuana. Colorado has done all that and decided to exempt themselves from all of the SOPA stuff as well (they aren't as under Hollywood's thumb as California is).
While it sucks for those gay couples in the south while they grow up, it should be obvious that they (and others that support these rights) will move to a new state. A state can't hold those couples in their state and refuse them to leave and states can't go to war with each other. So now you have two groups of people: those people in more "civilized" places like California and Colorado are happy and those people in the traditional south are happy too.
There is an elegance in letting complex, controversial issues be decided at lower levels and leave the top level government only worry about states violating a core set of rules. And you better believe that a constitutionalist like Ron Paul would enforce state adherence to the Bill of Rights. I would hope that at least that part would be indisputable.
I agree it can be messy. I agree that some people don't get what they want immediately (they might have to relocate). But at least they don't have to leave the country. At least they still eventually find like-minded people and influence their own local governments to get what they want.
Another point I want to make is that marriage is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and neither is having an abortion or smoking weed. And you'll only hear a libertarian note that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights outside of those explicitly guaranteed. So while you believe that these are rights (and I agree with you) not everyone does, and more importantly, not all of the Judicial branch does.
Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam?
Actually... Paul's "We the People Act" seeks to expressly place state laws on religion, sexual orientation and abortion outside of any possible constitutional review (essentially it's a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, targeted at the issues that provoke the most frothing at the mouth from social conservatives). So if he gets his way, yes, a state could pass a law banning Islam and there'd be no recourse.
He also wants to make it legal for states to legalize marijuana, despite that fact that he (I assume) would personally oppose the use of marijuana.
His personal opinion on the particular issue isn't what's motivating him, it's his opinion that it should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government.
More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1]
"Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now.
It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty.
That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same
pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and
preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions
on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power.
Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument).
The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway.
(I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.
On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.
Excuse me, what? He supported both the Defense of Marriage Act as well co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Act, "which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." That sentence alone is so offensive to my sensibilities as a citizen as to permanently disqualify him from my vote.
First off, Wikipedia is not a credible source. It is controlled by a group of editors who are leftists, and in many cases factual corrections are undone by them simply because they disagree with the editors politics.
Secondly that page agrees with me:
"Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[197] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004."
"He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[201] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[202][203] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[202]"
Thus, Ron Paul, directly quoted, endorses gay marriage. Something you can't say for Barack Obama.
"Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations."
I cut all the parts which contradict these because they are due to misinterpretations or assertions based on legislation that don't include any statements by Paul, or an explanation for why Paul might support some act. Paul has to pick and choose legislation carefully because most legislation contains both constitutional and unconstitutional provisions.
You can't cite him supporting some bad legislation unless you give the reasons he supported it, especially when it conflicts with direct statements. Well, you can, but that's just spin.
Now, I've spent time debating a wikipage, when you didn't provide even an argument for your position.
If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.
I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue.
It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality).
Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.
Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable.
Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them.
If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are.
And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary.
And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?
Yes I believe that because as a libertarian he would oppose using state power to give one group an advantage over another.
A libertarian is happy to allow any two or more adults to marry should they wish to do so. A libertarian just asks that no one's marriage is recognized by the state because it's not a matter that the state should be involved in. Can you really say that after gay marriage is legal everywhere (which will never happen) that marriage is actually equal? What about polygamists? I'm perfectly happy to allow them to obtain licenses to get married but it seems easier to just say government has no proper role in what is a private affair. This seems to make your case even better because it just removes from politics what is not a political issue.
Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person.
Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved.
It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one.
There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry.
That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.
Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"?
I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay?
What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination.
Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether.
I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no?
Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.
The difference we have here is that I don't think it's anti-discrimination laws that change society. It's communication and confrontation of evil that changes society, and that happens over time.
Anti-discrimination laws didn't pop out of nowhere; the idea had been building over time, and when they hit the courts, new laws where made, instead of addressing the issues with the laws that were already made.
You argue that the status quo remains unless something is done - I agree, however that something is not law. There's a word for forcing morality on people: bigotry.
Allowing black people to use public roads is a matter of upholding existing law: All people are created equal. It took a lot of time, but eventually America began to understand the inconsistency of that law - A law that wasn't forced on people, but rather one that people chose to support when they supported the revolution. Change didn't happen by law. The change happened by people no longer standing for it.
The fact is, whether the group of people is gay, black, or whatever, there will always be a people group that is being discriminated against by someone. 20 years from now, we'll be coming up with more laws about group x, and pundits will say, "This is just like the gay rights wars of the early 21st century - we need more laws!", just as much as gay rights pundits are making comparisons to mid-20th century race relations, and demanding more laws to address an issue that people are already changing.
The point is this: laws don't change people. You can't enforce morality on people. Enforcement only creates bitterness and more problems. Change happens because of cultural influence, and that cultural influence is the input to the change function, not the output of f(law).
Your last point is that state-recognized marriages get tax benefits, but that's an issue with the tax code, not marriage. Attempting to fix the problem by defining/redefining marriage is like spraying air freshener without flushing the toilet. The problem is the tax code, not marriage. If you remove the concept of a marriage license, there are no tax benefits, for anyone, no matter their sexuality. The state simply has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's an inherently personal matter. Subsequently, Ron Paul's removal of the IRS also addresses the larger problem.
This is why I keep touting "freedom freedom freedom", because that's the core principle from which the solution is grown. Get the government out of the way, so that people, together, can work out problems. Enforcing morality by law encourages segregation. Staying out of it, thereby forcing people to deal with themselves and others without running to mommy government...that's the long term solution.
Freedom solves all problems. It's arguably the ether of human relationships.
I would note that you are on to something: Ron Paul is unlikely to ever "support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable" but his reasons are likely more constitutionally-based than personal. But, either way, that is not the same thing as "against gay rights". Refusing affirmative action is not the same as promoting the segregation.
But saying "states have the right to legally segregate!" is tantamount to promoting the segregation, even if he adds to that "states should have the right to segregate without federal intervention, even if I personally would oppose that segregation."
What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates.
They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.
True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others.
You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.
Which ban? All I can find is his support of DOMA, and the Marriage Protection Act, which would have prevented Federal judges from ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA.
Further, he supports human rights in virtually every context, including marriage.
Paul wants the government out of the marriage business. Obama wants the government in the marriage business, AND he wants to keep gay marriage banned.
Thus if support of DOMA is your criteria, then Paul is a better choice than Obama.
Of course this has nothing to do with SOPA. It's just the leftist talking points for bashing Paul whenever his name comes up so we have to respond to these insinuations.
Yet he co-sponsored a bill that would make DOMA impossible to get rid of in any way. That doesn't count as much as voting for it?
Also: "If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act," So there's why he didn't vote for it or against it, or even abstain.
