As far as I’m concerned statutes against gay marriage are wrong at any level, same as any laws against consensual activity that doesn’t harm anyone else are wrong. I was only answering Brian’s question about Ron Paul’s position. He’s not pushing to legalize gay marriage because he doesn’t believe it’s a question the federal government has jurisdiction over and he’s running for a federal office. Here’s Paul’s own comment on this issue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

If you want to believe that means Ron Paul hates gay people and wants to strip them of their rights, whatever…I’ll trust Raimondo’s judgment on it over the judgment of someone who’s lately demonstrating an almost pathological need to find fault with Paul’s campaign.

I’d also point out that there is a strong 14th Amendment argument in favor of the proposition that state laws against same-sex marriage should be unconstitutional.

Supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, or taking the position that the Federal Courts should not be allowed to rule on this issue, which seems to be suggested by some of Paul’s writings on this issue that I’ve read, could therefore be seen as inconsistent with the Constitution in addition to being inconsistent with a belief in individual liberty.

First of all, as I said in my original post, this isn’t an argument about what the Constitution may or may nor permit, it’s an argument about individual liberty. Tyranny can exist at the state level just as it can exist at the Federal Level.

And the problem that some have pointed out with the position that Paul has taken on this issue is that he emphasizes Federalism and allowing the states to do what they want with marriage and de-emphasizes the individual liberties of the people impacted by those bigoted state laws. And this seems to be supported by some of his own writings on this issue over at Lew Rockwell’s blog.

Ummm, because according to our Constitution states have more power to interfere in individuals’ rights than the federal government does and many Congressmen are scumbag fucks who are okay with taking a bigoted position on an issue they have no real influence on if they think it’ll convince stupid people to vote for them?

What does it matter? The question was about Ron Paul, not Congress in general, and Paul is on the record as being supportive of allowing people the right to do things consensually.

Then why does the Cong. seem to think its okay if, say, the state of Alabama decided to tell homosexuals that they werent entitled to something that every heterosexual is, specifically the right to be married and the civil benefits that flow from that institution ?

As for the whole “gay rights” issue, it’s actually a bit of a red herring in discussing Paul’s platform. Paul isn’t for “gay rights” or “minority rights” or rights for any other collective group. He’s for individual rights, regardless of what group those individuals choose to affiliate with. And part of his platform for individual rights is to allow individuals to voluntarily interact as they choose so long as they aren’t harming anyone else. See how this works in your (and everyone else’s) favor on the issue, Brian?

Actually, Paul is supportive of voluntary associations of all kinds (which includes gay marriage). He hasn’t pushed for legislation on it one way or the other at the federal level because he doesn’t believe it’s a power reserved for the federal government (therefore unconstitutional), it’s an issue for the voters of each state to decide for themselves. He introduced the “We The People Act” in 2005 to remove the federal government from the process of deliberation on gay marriage (he also voted against the federal ban on gay marriage, also on the grounds that it’s not an issue for the feds to decide). Whatever you think his personal views on the subject of homosexuality may be, he’s done more for equal rights (for both straight and gay) than any other candidate you’re likely to find in this presidential race.

I haven’t heard a really good answer yet. Usually, it’s either sanctimonious dismissal of the LP, or gay people followed up with a “sure, Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but he’s the best we’ve got” point.

However, the same people shouting out that point don’t believe it themselves. If a “Ron Paul clone” existed — one who advocated a full libertarian platform on everything (including gay marriage unlike Ron Paul), but who wanted, say, national single-payer government health care or mandatory confiscation of all handguns, would they support him?

Would they say “oh, well, he’s bad on that point, but it’s a minor issue and he’s the best chance we’ve got, stop bitching!”

Of course they wouldn’t. They’d assail him at every opportunity.

Which just underscores the dishonesty of that argument.

The reality is, Ron Paul gives his supporters everything *they* want, and supports the bits of the constitution that benefits *them*. However, he doesn’t support all of the constitution, and his program doesn’t benefit LGBTQ people — Libertarians or otherwise — to the degree that an LP candidate’s will.

So Ron Paul hasn’t earned my vote. And until he starts supporting the *entire* constitution, rather than just the bits and pieces that he likes, he will continue to fail to win the support of people who accept the entire constitution.

Having said that, I don’t think he believes that the states should be regulating it either. He says “marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved.” This to me says that he thinks marriage is not the business of the government. He also states “All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law.” That would include unions that couples (heterosexual or homosexual) agree to enter into.

You temper every bit of positive news with something pessimistic. If your goal is really just to be an honest purveyor of news and analysis, I would expect the negative pieces to be tempered with something positive.

If you had simply said “…but at least he’s not a homophobe like the rest of the candidates”, I wouldn’t have raised a single objection.

Because the other candidates are all homophobes anyway, we know where they stand.

And I tend to hold someone who calls themselves a libertarian to higher standards when it comes to issues like this.

Search for Giuliani’s name in the search box on the left.

Did that. Paul comes up more than the rest of the candidates combined and all but a few of the Paul posts end with a vintage Mataconis “I like him but…”

More to the point, though, Jason Pye was the only one to post on the debate as a whole. You, however, chose to nitpick one portion of one issue of one candidate.

You didn’t even have the decency to compare Paul’s statement to those of the other candidates who received the same question.

Read and enjoy.

I’m going to point those disagreements out when appropriate just as much as I criticize Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and the rest.

LOL. That’s some pretty easy BS to call, Doug.

“Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and the rest” spent two hours spewing crap last night.

Where are the threads pointing out your disagreements with them?