Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
State Should Stay Out Of People's Romantic Affairs

Ron Paul On Gay Marriage

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s libertarian roots came out full force during an interview with ABC’s 20/20. Rather than taking a direct stand against gay marriage, the Texan expressed tacit approval of state-based marriages, but insisted he thinks the traditional institution should stay in the church:

John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state function. I think it’s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don’t agree with that.

If only we could invent a time machine and stop the state’s marital hijacking. Or, better yet, if we only people could accept the fact that the state’s now part of marriage and should treat everyone equally.

We’ve included the video after the jump. Paul’s queer comments come around the 2:20 mark.

On:           Dec 10, 2007
Tagged: , , , ,
    • Andy

      Ron Paul rocks! I’m gay, and voting for Ron Paul. I just went to two of his rallies this past weekend, and the man is brilliant!

      Dec 10, 2007 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dale in Oklahoma

      Hello All! Please take a good look at Ron Paul and his bid for your Presidency. You and I may not agree with every single thing that he likes personally, but that’s not a bad thing…Because he lets the Constitution do his speaking. Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President so he can force his likes/dislikes on the American people. Ron Paul wants to be President to return the power to the people and the states where it belongs. Please take time to check out Ron Paul and share him with your friends gay or straight.

      Google: Ron Paul
      www. ron paul 2008.com

      Ada, Oklahoma

      Dec 10, 2007 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brent

      So, his position is generally, get the federal government out of it? Let states decide? And on his personal note (since he can’t rule the state governments, just federal), he doesn’t even think marriage should be in government at all?

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Luther

      Like every issue, Ron Paul’s position on the “gay marriage” question is very reasonable.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sh(A)ne

      @Brent >> he doesn’t even think marriage should be in government at all?<<

      Exactly! (And why should it?!) It’s amazing to me that so few people think anything of it when they have to go ask the state’s permission (ie, get a license) in order to make the most _personal_ of all commitments to one another. How the heck did we let that decision become a _public_ issue?! It’s absurd.


      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JL

      Marriage should not be a government issue at all, and most certainly not a federal issue. why should anyone, gay or straight, have to get permission from their government (or anyone else) to get married? Ron Paul is absolutely right. marriage is a religious or personal function and should not be dictated by the government.

      Ron Paul sees people as individuals and not groups. And he honestly and sincerely believes that every individual deserves equal rights. It is built into the foundation of the philosophy upon which he bases every one of his political decisions. government ought only intervene when the rights of an individual are being violated.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sh(A)ne

      Re: Helen Miren’s quote:

      “I think gays absolutely should have the right. For the same reason Taylor and I got married — to be able to say, by law, ‘This person is important to me.’”

      The law can recognize the importance of a person’s marriage without regulating it! It recognizes all sorts of contract-relationships (buyer/seller, lessor/lessee, …) without issuing licenses — and refusing licenses to a percentage of the population!


      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John

      Sounds good, but his history is wrong. Truth be told, marriage has been controlled by the state since the days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. If the Puritans could see marriage as a purely civil affair, why can’t we?

      Ron Paul has it backwards. Marriage was originally a government affair (as it is intimately tied up with property rights) and then the religious institutions put a religious gloss on it.

      The churches highjacked marriage. We need to forbid members of the clergy from acting as agents of the state (as they do when signing marriage licenses). If getting a marriage license was like getting a driving license (i.e.: no clergy), we wouldn’t have this argument. And I tremble at the thought of a member of the clergy coming up with a blessing for new drivers. There goes my car.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mozzer13

      Ron Paul’s strict constructionist views of the Constitution are deeply disturbing to me. The framers were not Miss Cleo. They could not see the future, and they understood that. This is why they left things open for interpretation. We do not need Clarence Thomas as our president.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ash

      Are you serious? Everyone is supporting this guy? You do realize that if he’s elected everything will stay the same, right? There’s no way in hell he could significantly change anything about marriage. Why has no one commented on his homophobic comments, like gays “imposing their relationship on somebody else” and how he doesn’t approve of gay couples. This is still a homophobe, he’s just using clever wording to trick you into thinking he’s your friend.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidDust

      OMG – the Paultards have infiltrated Queerty!

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric

      re: mozzer13:

      No, the framers could not plan for every eventuality. That’s why they created the amendment process. Last time I checked, the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land. If parts of it are outdated (and I certainly agree this is the case), then the proper course of action is to amend it, not ignore it.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kel777

      Ron Paul is wrong here. Marriage has historically been a legal matter, not a religious one, but I agree this should end. I personally am against marriage altogether.

      This reminds me of his claim that republicans have always been the anti-war party (ludicrous). I agree with him about many things, and admire that he is not your run of the mill American Fraud, but he’s a kook. I’d still vote for him over Hillary, though, no contest.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kestutis

      It’s amazing to me that in the same breath people accuse Ron Paul supporters of conspiracy-mongering, and then imply that every pro-Paul comment on the web is a part of the “Paultard” conspiracy. Have you considered, DavidDust, that perhaps Ron Paul truly does have support in all corners of America?

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kel777

      No. 8 John says:

      Sounds good, but his history is wrong. Truth be told, marriage has been controlled by the state since the days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. If the Puritans could see marriage as a purely civil affair, why can’t we?

      John, more like since the days of the Egyptians.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Davis

      check out his official website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • billy budd

      “”like gays “imposing their relationship on somebody else” and how he doesn’t approve of gay couples. This is still a homophobe, he’s just using clever wording to trick you into thinking he’s your friend.””

      I disagree. I think he’s saying there’s room for everybody. Live and let live. I think some people confuse the right of others to hold their own personal beliefs with homophobia. There’s a difference between seeking and gaining equal rights vs looking for blessings and condonation. I think what Paul is saying is that it doesn’t matter what his or anybody elses personal views are. Freedom trumps all. He sees people as individuals instead of groups.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Woof

      No republicans…period

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Max

      Live and let live. Marriage is a personal contract between two people. The government does not need to be involved in it except to protect the individuals in the contract from fraud and coercion. I agree with RP 100% in this matter.

      What business is it of the state’s what two consenting adults want to do with their own lives?

      Instead of focusing on the intangibles why not focus on the fact that it is a Republican who is defending your individual rights? There are Democrats in the “top-tier” that don’t even believe gay people should be allowed to marry — in fact, all of them don’t.

      RP 08!

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HL

      Ron Paul is very interesting. He has some really great ideas, but I don’t 100 percent agree with all his views. But I think he is so different because we aren’t used to libertarians.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt

      What I don’t understand is how otherwise intelligent, well-informed, thoughtful people can buy into this libertarian claptrap. The notion of “leaving it to the states” has been proven unworkable in the past with major civil rights issues, and the idea that the Constitution cannot be interpreted but has to go through an onerous amendment process in order to be relevant to current situations is nonsensical and generally unworkable — strict construction always ends up on the conservative side of issues, because it’s bound to 18th century thinking. RP is unique among the republicans because he seems to be relatively honest about what he believes, and that’s refreshing: it’s not a basis for election, however.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caldera

      These issues of gay marriage are the most ridiculous things to be dealing within government. Re-read comment #6 from JL above, that is right on the money. And speaking of money, if people dont’ start listening to Ron Paul’s warnings about the dollar and the economy we are going down BIG TIME. Listen to Jim Rogers, listen to Peter Schiff and do some YouTube’n on the Federal Reserve.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Passaniti

      The intent behind gays seeking to legally marry each other has nothing to do with “getting permission from the state.” Marriage provides the couple with a set of rights and responsibilities that are recognized by the government and (for the most part) are treated consistently in every state.

      Currently, gay couples must go through some extraordinary hoops to ensure that the rights and responsibilities that are implicitly recognized by virtue of a marriage license also apply to them.

      Let’s take one real-world example. If my spouse happened to be a woman instead of a man, I would know that if I was hurt and had to go to the hospital that they would get automatic visitation rights in any of the 50 states. But because I’m gay, that is not guaranteed in my state much less the other 49.

      I don’t have a problem if Ron Paul wants to make things truly equal– that married couples regardless of gender have no implicit rights and responsibilities and must (like we gay couples) have to file legal documents every step of the way– and fear that if they cross a state line it won’t apply.

      Of course, even if Ron Paul does manage to win the election, he hasn’t a shot in hell of changing marriage policy. Those who think Ron’s position is groovy can enjoy the theoretical benefits of it, because it won’t happen if he’s the President.

      Ron Paul supporters: Don’t tell me his positions– those are on his web site and elsewhere. Instead, tell me how he would implement his positions.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer

      +The notion of “leaving it to the states” has been proven unworkable in the past with major civil rights issues+

      I disagree – we’re having much better luck with gay rights in individual states and cities than with the federal government. Universal suffrage, slavery, civil rights, & women’s rights were all fought over in the states for generations ; all the feds did was strike the final blow once a general consensus was reached.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JL

      “No republicans…period”

      that is the most closed minded statement in this thread. It disturbs me to no end when people say this. rather than look at the candidate and their positions they base their decision on stereotypes.

      Ron Paul is not a homophobe. to draw that conclusion from his comment is making a huge leap. what he was saying was that people should be free to do as they please as long as they do not impose their personal decisions on anyone else against their will. what he said applies to heterosexuals as well. they cannot justly impose their beliefs on homosexuals anymore than homosexuals can justly impose theirs on them. it’s a two way street.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael

      A clear shift in attitude is what is needed to change things. We typically feel that there is a need for the government to make these changes. A one size fits all ruling of 51%. Don’t worry about the other 49% receiving the short end of the stick.

      Ron Paul’s positions are geared towards everyone being recognized as individuals; that is clearly stated in the Constitution. One-size-fits-all does not apply because we have inalienable rights that will not be infringed upon.

      This is the stand that we all have to take and it can only happen if the Federal government stays out of the business of regulating things that are our inalienable rights. Secondly, we have to think that WE can make a change at the local level. It’s much easier to march or protest locally than it is trying to get people to D.C.

      Ron Paul would implement his positions by vetoing legislation that banned same sex marriages & unions because it infringes on our inalienable rights. He would remove the road blocks and the Christian lobbying power from creating one-size-fits-all legislation across the board.

      It is too difficult to do on a national stage and every city council meeting should be attended by the individuals that truly want change.

      The question is: If the Road Blocks are removed, what are You going to do to change the world we live in? (I can give you a hint, Government is not the answer)

      Dec 10, 2007 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Js12

      Ash, you are wrong. Paul will change things. As President he would not allow un-constitutional garbage like the patriot act to pass. He could pardon citizens who choose not to pay federal income taxes. He would be able to select candidates for the supreme court. He would be able to make more changes than you think. As for your ignorant comments about him being hateful towards gays, you are wrong. He may not personally agree with homosexuality, but he would fight for the rights of gays and non-gays no matter what. Open your eyes.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David

      Paul is right in that the Liberty philosophy is the one which is the surest path to allowing everyone to run their lives as they see fit. The idea that we have our rights as individuals and not according to the influence of the group we are aligned with is one that people from very disparate views get can united behind, and they are. We can bicker about this and accomplish nothing but continued strife, or we can pull together behind the freedom message.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil

      Ron Paul wants to protect the right of freedom of contract which includes a marriage contract. That means that government should respect agreements made by two individuals. I have been listening to Ron Paul for several months now and have not gotten any inclination of homophobia in fact just the opposite. He really values individual freedom and believes government should protect each individuals rights and liberties equally. Even when he was interviewed by an irrational
      homophobic televangelists he stuck to his ground and would not give in.

      He talks about the rights on contract a bit clearer in his Google interview.

      He mentions gay marriage at 12:10

      Dec 10, 2007 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tess

      Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President that doesn’t want to run your life, and that sounds great to me. Get the government out of my life and let me live it!!!!

      Ron Paul has my vote and support.

      Tess, California

      Dec 10, 2007 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MJK

      marriage is not a religious thing. It is a legally binding contract that many of our state and local laws revolve around. Rules for probate, power of attorney, and of course divorce laws all hinge on who signed the marriage licence.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R

      This is Ron Paul:
      Supports teaching of Creationism in public schools.
      Supports tax credits for Christian Schooling.
      Voted NO on allowing courts to decide on “God” in Pledge of Allegiance and public buildings.
      Will abolish Departments of Education, EPA, OSHA, FDA and HHS.
      Supports Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
      Supports DOMA.
      Supports DADT.
      Opposes same sex adoption.
      Opposes Hate Crime Legislation.
      Opposes “Sexual Orientation” job protections.
      Against abortion. Believes life begins at conception.
      Against funding for Family Planning.
      Against Universal Health Care, Managed Care, Medicare and Medicaid. Supports Personal Health Savings Accounts.
      Voted No on moratorium on offshore/ANWR oil drilling.
      Voted No on incentives for alternate fuels.
      Voted No on Kyoto Treaty.
      China trade should not be contingent on human rights or product safety concerns.
      Voted No on campaign finance reforms. Supports “soft money” and opposes Fairness Doctrine.
      Opposes all gun regulation. Rated 100% by NRA. Thinks every citizen should be able to carry concealed weapon.
      Against minimum wage.
      Voted for Bankruptcy Reform.
      Voted No to restricting employer interference in union organizing.
      Supports privatization of Social Security.
      Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent.
      Supports eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest.
      Supports repeal of estate tax.
      Now, for what really makes Paul popular, especially with the youngsters, Paul would eliminate the war on drugs and legalize marijuana. He would end war in Iraq.
      So this is Ron Paul. If you like Pat Buchanan, you’ll just love Ron Paul.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris

      That non-civil “marriage” without benefits as simple legal contract (which of course must not be named marriage) is available by now. If you want this “marriage” which is nothing more than romance and there’s no need for anybody to recognize it, you can have it.

      I doubt that many couples want this right wing version of gay marriage.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mozzer13

      Thank you Bob! Haven’t we figured out by now that “leave it to the states” is code for “let the red states discriminate all they want”?

      Dec 10, 2007 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric

      As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be simply a contract between two consenting adults. Nothing more. If the government can just get out of the business of ‘defining’ what marriage should be, and just enforce the contracts, then the equal rights of it will be solved.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason

      #32: Ron Paul votes no on legislation for one of two reasons. Either it violates the Constitution, or it does not enhance the freedom of the individual. When he votes Yes on Legislation, you can be sure that there is a strong Constitutional backing to the bill, and it will enhance liberty, not detract from it.

      Let’s take just one of them: Guns. People have the right to be armed. And contrary to many people’s opinions, the primary use of guns is not hunting. It is self-protection from criminals, and from tyranny. If the government started rounding up gays into trains, you can bet your ass there would be Ron Paul supporters, armed and ready to fight for your cause. People who apply for and receive a permit for a concealed weapon aren’t the type to be criminals; they’re the types that would put down a campus or mall gunman before he can do serious harm.

      As far as other bills go, like the one you say ‘against funding for family planning’. Ron Paul is NOT against family planning. He is against FEDERAL FUNDING of family planning. Its time to get the government OUT of our lives. We don’t want the government telling us who we can and can’t marry; why would we want it telling anything? Who learns their values and morals from the government? You can’t legislate morality or decency.

      Live in a free society. Vote Ron Paul to protect the rights of everyone (that means you, AND the people you disagree with).

      Dec 10, 2007 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J

      RE: No. 34 mozzer13 says:
      “Thank you Bob! Haven’t we figured out by now that “leave it to the states” is code for “let the red states discriminate all they want”?”

      Leave it to the states literally means the federal government, per the constitution, is restricted from doing do something. (in other words its against the law for the fed govt to get involved or to take action) therefore per the constitution it is up to the states to handle.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Letma Peoplego


      “RP is unique among the republicans because he seems to be relatively honest about what he believes, and that’s refreshing: it’s not a basis for election, however.”

      What not? I would say he is unique among all the contenders because of this trait. I think a “refreshing honesty” should be the number one basis for an election.

      Otherwise you are left with, “I know they are lying to me, but I like what they say.”

      Let’s face it. When you find yourself disagreeing with Ron Paul it is because he is too tolerant of something or someone you hate.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mozzer13

      Except they aren’t restricted from doing any of those things, J. Ron Paul and Clarence Thomas want to change nearly 100 years of constitutional jurisprudence to go back to a time when the states were able to manage the relatively simple affairs of commerce. But life isn’t like that anymore, and that is the beauty of the Constitution. It is a living breathing flexible guideline that adapts to the country’s needs. The states very simply cannot handle all that is required of them in a world of international commerce. Leaving things in today’s world to the states mean that about half the country’s population will get to enjoy the tyranny of the majority while the national economy falls into complete chaos.

      Ron Paul might have been a good candidate 100 years ago. He’s living in a dream world today.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil

      You really believe that mozzer13? I mean wasn’t it the loose interpretation of the constitution that got this country into Iraq? The Congress should have voted up or down on war instead, they gave all the power to the executive which is unconstitutional.

      WE have had a loose interpretation of the constitution and we are now as a nation over 9 trillion in debt and there is no way we are every going to get out of it unless we go back to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. I live in Michigan and we are practically swimming in debt, our schools in Detroit are horrifically under funded and yet those poor families have to send their federal income tax to the government to pay for military bases around the world or to give tax subsidies to the oil companies. for shame, the Federal government does not work for us.

      “Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”
      Ron Paul

      Dec 10, 2007 at 7:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer

      Does anyone get the feeling that most of these posters are by the same guy using different names? That, or all libertarians have learned to think and write exactly alike – which seems antithetical to the whole notion of ‘libertarianism.’

      Dec 10, 2007 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MAD

      I just got back from the future, traveling in my time machine, and sorry to inform that Ron Paul is a complete non-entity on election day. If there was more than 1st and 2nd place, he comes in about 5th, and is defeated by 10 million votes. His rabid cult like following declare “conspiracy”, and Ron Paul fades off into obscurity, spending the 14 million dollars he fleeced from gullible “truthers”, on his long time coming retirement party.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MAD

      And speaking of John Stossel, Ron Paul has actually stated in the past that he would like Stossel to be his VP, in the event that he wins the presidency. He’s the only running mate Paul has ever announced. Seriously. That’s a guy that doesn’t even take his own campaign seriously, Paul has already stated that he exceeded all expectations. 5th place will have exceeded his expectations.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil

      hisurfer, trust me there are allot of us out there….

      I doubt most of us are delusional, we know that we pretty much have no shot at the nomination but hey what the hell, lets go for it right?

      I am just so terrified that Mike “Imprison AIDS patients and release rapists” Huckabee might when the nomination. That guy is not only a homophobe but also believes in legislating “virtue” and “morallity”. All code words for allowing the majority to rule over the minority.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil

      Mad, yea I don’t think Paul has much of a chance, of course not too many Repub’s seem very energized by their candidates, (“except of course for our future Christian Ayatollah Huchabee”), so we will just have to wait and see.

      PS: I meant “win” not “when”. Not sure what i was smoking…

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Deeptoad

      Are people really still fussing over this non-issue? People… only the states can sanction the contract of marriage. Not the federal government.

      All this talk in 2004 about banning gay marriage was a smoke-screen by the neocons looking to garner support of right-wing religious types.

      Ain’t gonna happen.

      Paul’s position is constitutionally correct, common sense and servant to the people. That’s what government is SUPPOSED to be. Not legislating the reduction of personal liberty based on a moral judgment.

      Wake up and see the posers like Huckabee for what they are. Store bought politicians.

      You want out of this mess? Vote Ron Paul

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason

      “Thank you Bob! Haven’t we figured out by now that “leave it to the states” is code for “let the red states discriminate all they want”?”

      Yea, don’t you know “Laws” only apply to Law abiding people. Discrimination still goes on (I lived in GA and FL btw) Laws don’t change anything, its people who change it. The Little Rock school that got interegrated didn’t happen because of a law, it was by force! Other places didn’t have to use force. Let give you an example: My Grand Uncle before he died worked in Houston TX as city councilman for 30 years! When Houston started the Bus intergration his leadership made it so that there was no violence. No problems. So, its not so much laws that change things its people and leadership on all levels. It might conveint to post something on a website and not have to back it up cuz no one will ever see you in person but you know what? Your wrong! If you want change go to the Red States and do something about it! Ron Paul’s beliefs and policies make it so that poeple are empowered in thier states and communities to take charge with these issues instead of “One Size Fits All” approach. I for one, when I am done my Military service will do something, how about you?

      Dec 10, 2007 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • josh2008

      YOU HAVE INCURRED THE WRATH OF THE SEA OF ONLINE PAULBOT TROLLS (Note: Paulbots are not actual spam-bots but humans that behave like spam-bots). Now you must be SPAMMED TO DEATH mostly by people who have never read this blog before and care or know little about issues concerning homosexuality and the law.

      Whether you meant to or not you have just become fodder in the Paulbot spam wars.

      This is why many sites have recently discovered the benefits of actively monitoring their comments.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R

      Jason, it’s obvious by your post you are both young and ignorant. The facts about Paul and his Libertarian ilk are out there and so is his record and his written and spoken words. Whether you choose to read them and understand them or believe them is your problem. Or you can just go on blind faith like so many other fanatics and dupes.

      It seems you’re a “States righter” and believe everything should be decided by the local folk. If that’s the case, there’d be no civil rights for African Americans and women would still be chattel in many states, and gays would be routinely prosecuted for sodomy, especially the south. There are certain laws that are left to the states and others that are not. Otherwise we wouldn’t be a United States with a central federal government but a conglomerate of “nation states” reminiscent of ancient Greece. Your education and worldly experience is truly lacking.

      Laws are made and passed in the Legislature and enforced by the Executive branch of government. Those who choose to ignore the law are met with force. That’s why we have policemen, or if necessary on a larger scale, the National Guard or military. If you don’t like a law, you work to change it. If you don’t like the laws your representatives write, you have the right to change them. I don’t like Ron Paul and his view of the Constitution. Therefor, I will vote and work against his candidacy. I think you’re wrong on so many levels I haven’t the time nor inclination to school you in the fundamentals. You have you opinion and I have mine.

      So once you complete your military service, if you do and no one “outs you” for reading/blogging on a gay web site, then do something. Run for office or work for change, I really don’t care what you choose to do. Also, I did my military service and put my life on the line in Viet Nam, with the 3rd Marines, so I’m really not impressed that you’re a military man. And if I saw you in person I’d have no reservation about giving you my opinion and “backing it up”. While you are in the military, I suggest you try getting an education and learning about your country’s history, Constitution and government. And yes, Ron Paul is the candidate for ’08, but I mean 1808.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 9:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • josh2008

      I hope you guys aren’t going to let a bunch of trolling Paulbot campaigners piss all over this site (to the point of having the audacity/ignorance to claim that the Marriage Protection Act was a good thing — on a gay website).

      Does this remind anyone of proselytizing evangelical missionaries?

      Dec 10, 2007 at 10:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil

      Libertarian philosophy, in its purest sense strongly oppose any government interference in ones personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, they believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another. So government, whether federal state or local could never use force to harm any one of its citizens, this would include interfering with any type of contract. Libertarians are very socially tolerant. They believe any law that attempts to restrict someone’s personal lifestyle is illegal at all levels of government.

      It would be interesting to find out if Ron Paul believes in this interpretation of Libertarianism, do the State and Local governments have a right to use force so as to control the actions their citizens? I have heard him profess the belief that government must defend private contracts, “which hints to this effect”, though I do not believe he has been asked specifically what he feels the States and Local governments powers are.

      If he thought the States did have the right to use force to control their citizens then that would be a deal breaker for me.

      Dec 10, 2007 at 11:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric

      Neil- Paul has been in Libertarian circles for a long time and I seriously doubt if he believed that statist action was okay as long as it was locally done. He is however elected to the federal government and can only speak to matters of the federal government, which he seeks to have its role as laid out in the constitution maintained, not increased nor decreased.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim Rogers

      John Passaniti
      That was a good Question How wood Ron Paul get anything passed . I have an answer for you ..
      Noone in government turns in anyone in Government because they are all dirty Now Someone like Ron Paul gets the highest office in the LAnd and hes Clean. Now Thats Leverage.
      I think if you think about it if he makes it to the presidency there won’t be anything that can stop him without risking a Visit from the attorney general.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 1:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve

      In the interest in truthfulness, I have to correct some points from the “This is Ron Paul” post above. The writer is mistaken (hopefully) about many things. Perhaps the differences are merely too subtle for immediate perception.

      Ron Paul does not support the teaching of creationism in public schools. Ron Paul believes public schools should be privatized and that parents should have full say in regards to their children’s curriculum and choice of school.

      Most libertarians, including Paul, do support the concept of tax-negative vouchers to allow poor families to remove their children from failing public schools. Whether those vouchers are used at private Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Gay schools is up to the parents as far as libertarians are concerned. That goes with not imposing your views on others.

      Paul does support the abolition of a whole host of government agencies and departments. He has said he would faze them out, not abolish them overnight. Many of their functions could be provided in the private sector and many could simply become private businesses themselves, operating exactly the same, but without taxpayer subsidy.

      It seems unlikely that Paul supports a Constitutional amendment to allow for state imposed prayer in public schools. Why would he? He doesn’t believe pubic schools are a proper function of government. I suspect the writer is misinterpreting or misrepresenting something.

      The writer fails to disclose that Paul’s position on many of the issues isn’t that he opposes or supports the intent of something, but merely that Paul believes that the issue should be left to the states, that the issue is simply not a federal matter authorized under the Constitution. This is particularly the case on hot-button issues such as same-sex adoptions, hate crimes legislation, funding for family planning, universal health care, etc. Paul simply believes these are matters Constitutionally mandated to be left to the individual states, where a dynamic, competitive democratic process can find the best solution from a testbed of 50 solutions.

      I could go on, but any intelligent reader will have gotten the point by now. The post above (quoted below as well) either doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want the reader to get. Paul’s position on anything can be derived from a simple, straightforward reading of the Constitution. While Paul is a libertarian, in some cases the Constitution doesn’t provide for a libertarian position, and yet Paul recognizes that the proper response is not to ignore the Constitution, but rather to undertake the amending process as required by the Constitution itself.

      Ask yourself? Why did we need a constitutional amendment to federally outlaw alcohol in the 1920s? Or to nationally outlaw racial restrictions on voting 1950s? Now ask yourself? Why don’t we need a constitutional amendment to implement ENDA 2007? The answer is either: a.) that we don’t need the amendment because we are no longer a society based on constitutional body of law and the government is now free to impose any new set of rules on us based on the political winds of history, or b.) we do need a constitutional amendment to pass ENDA, because such issues are, under the Constitution, supposed to be left to the States. These are the types of issues that Ron Paul gives rational thinking time to. It would be good if we all did.


      Original Quote: This is Ron Paul:
Supports teaching of Creationism in public schools.
Supports tax credits for Christian Schooling.
Voted NO on allowing courts to decide on “God” in Pledge of Allegiance and public buildings.
Will abolish Departments of Education, EPA, OSHA, FDA and HHS.
Supports Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Supports DOMA.
Supports DADT.
Opposes same sex adoption.
Opposes Hate Crime Legislation.
Opposes “Sexual Orientation” job protections.
Against abortion. Believes life begins at conception.
Against funding for Family Planning.
Against Universal Health Care, Managed Care, Medicare and Medicaid. Supports Personal Health Savings Accounts.
Voted No on moratorium on offshore/ANWR oil drilling.
Voted No on incentives for alternate fuels.
Voted No on Kyoto Treaty.
China trade should not be contingent on human rights or product safety concerns.
Voted No on campaign finance reforms. Supports “soft money” and opposes Fairness Doctrine.
Opposes all gun regulation. Rated 100% by NRA. Thinks every citizen should be able to carry concealed weapon.
Against minimum wage.
Voted for Bankruptcy Reform.
Voted No to restricting employer interference in union organizing.
Supports privatization of Social Security.
Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent.
Supports eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest.
Supports repeal of estate tax.
Now, for what really makes Paul popular, especially with the youngsters, Paul would eliminate the war on drugs and legalize marijuana. He would end war in Iraq.
So this is Ron Paul. If you like Pat Buchanan, you’ll just love Ron Paul.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 1:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul

      Is this another “vast right-wing conspiracy” theory from the Hillary camp?

      Dec 11, 2007 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iswuzwilby

      As a gay person, I don’t really care to have the state recognize my relationship. Screw them. Non of their business. A more important issue is our foreign policy and I like Ron Paul’s policy of non-interventionism. The world might like us again one day if we’ll stop letting our military do the dirty work of evil multi-national corporations. He’s the only candidate saying “bring them home now”.. Excepting Kucinich, but I’m not a socialist.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 2:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • waterboarding4peace

      Well was going to comment but wouldn’t want to appear as a “paultard”….what a jerk. I think Paultard should be what you call someone who doesnt research his views and just sets out to bash him (also usually these people also lack any comprehension of empathy and parrot whatever neocon news feed they watch daily. If you cant understand him at least show him some respect for the integrity that is absent in so many of his peers.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 6:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Power

      His rhetoric SOUNDS wonderful, but his voting record and public statements on actual policy being debated in Congress are less than wonderful…

      Ron Paul opposing Lawrence v. Texas:


      Ron Paul supporting DOMA and his own law, The Marriage Protection Act:


      And even when opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, his support for DOMA:

      “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act…”


      By contrast, real Libertarians support equal rights:


      I’m a Libertarian. I work with Libertarians. Ron Paul is no Libertarian.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blackiemiko

      No Republicans…period…Seconded!

      Dec 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer

      Finally – a real Libertarian who signs his name! And thanks for the links … it should cause any fag or dyke who backs Ron Paul to wake up.

      Wish I could join you in the Party – you had me until the part about abolishing all public ownership of land. In my part of the world that translates to: sell it all off to Japan and California.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick

      I am a libertarian and there are thousands upon thousands of us, yet I’ve never met one (and I speak to many) who agree with me on every issue 100%. To say that Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian is to use a purity test that really is only pure to the person administering the test. Some say that because he is pro-life he can’t be libertarian. Well, an abortion to some libertarians is an aggressive act against an innocent human being, while others say that forcing a woman to maintain her pregnancy is to use force upon her. Who is right and who is wrong? Maybe both?

      The point is that one can be a libertarian and not fit someone else’s definition exactly. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist with libertarian and conservative leanings, I think is the best way to describe him. It shouldn’t prevent any gay person from voting for him, unless you are a socialist in which case you advocate government force as long as it fits your view of the economy and how everyone else’s tax dollars are used, tax dollars taken by force, that is.

      Is Ron Paul homophobic? That would indicate he is afriad of homosexuals and he has never suggested such a thing. Is he an advocate for gay marriage? Well, he wrote a law that would protect states that want gay marriage from being restricted by the federal government and at the same time protecting states that don’t want it from the federal government. That seems to be the Constitutional position.

      Anyone that thinks this will be decided at the federal level is an idiot. Enough Republicans will block pro-gay legislation, while enough Democrats will block anti-gay legislation. So, the best way for states to HAVE gay marriage is for Ron Paul’s bill to pass. Some states would allow it, prove that it is not harmful to society (which is the argument bigots use against it), and then throughout the course of time, other states will see how stupid they were, just as they have with inter-racial marriage bans. Those ended because of tolerant states showing it was not harmful which was the bigots’ argument against it, or “it ain’t riiight.” The fact that Ron Paul went on ABC and said he sees no problem with gays getting married if they want to should tell you something. Or you just are in favor of a different candidate so you are spinning something and it rhymes with spit.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick

      Actually, since it is unlikely for his bill to pass, you should push your state to legalize gay marriage, since that can happen with or without federal approval.

      Either way, vote for Ron Paul because he is right on everything else that he wants to limit the government, and that too, will make legalization of gay marriage in each state more likely. When the federal government stops being moral baby-sitter, people won’t expect them to ban gay marriage like Mitt Romney said he will make his priority.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer

      Nick – follow the links No. 58 gave to his actual speeches.

      “Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. ”

      “If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state”

      “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.”

      “What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. ”

      “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. ”

      This hick is not our friend. He has vowed to actively fight gay marriage. His reading of the Constitution is only structuralist when it comes time to deny someone equal rights. Like other Republicans, he fully supports activist judges of the right, and backs a state’s right to oppress with much more fervor than a state’s right to liberate.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John

      The guy above “claims” he is a libertarian, but then screams that Paul isn’t because Paul thinks the states should have a right to decide on queer rights for themselves. That doesn’t make sense. He sounds more liberal then libertarian. Maybe he should be voting Democrat, like real fags do.

      Dec 11, 2007 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • josh2008

      Libertarianism, constitutionalism, and state’s-rights-ism (whatever the official term) are seperate philosophies that Paul is mixing. There are a lot of Libertarians that want nothing to do with state’s rights philosophy. I’m sorry if someone just can’t handle that. You’re not welcome. Libertarianism is against statism – state control over personal freedoms. The local state (as the 50 US states) is also a state entity (if you didn’t get that by the words being identical although having slightly different connotation you are a moron). The areas where Paul mixes state’s-rights-ism into libertarianism are a deal-breaker for many because for some people it is personal liberties that matter the most, including freedom from restrictions on sexuality (for others it’s drugs or taxes).

      And it is contradictory to argue that you should support Ron Paul even though you strongly oppose his positions on issues you care about most, and at the same time claim you should not throw away your votes on any other candidates because they aren’t the ideal candidate or don’t conform to libertarianism (Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily either). If it’s that you must pick and choose then we will, and we don’t give a damn about which Libertarian positions you think are more important to pick and choose. If you don’t like it f*ck off.

      What is state’s rights?
      Check Wiki.
      -I prefer minarchist or even anarcho-capitalist libertarianism to state’s rights


      “The term “states’ rights” has been used as a code word by defenders of segregation, and was the official name of the “Dixiecrat” party led by segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. George Wallace, the Alabama governor, who famously declared in his inaugural address, “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”, later remarked that he should have said, “States’ rights now! States’ rights tomorrow! States’ rights forever!” Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states’ rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states’ rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[5]

      “On the opening day of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, the new candidiate declared, “I believe in states’ rights” in a speech at Neshoba County fairgrounds near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia was the site of the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. Andrew Young, Bob Herbert and others believed that Reagan’s choice of this location to give his states’ rights speech constituted a veiled appeal to southern segregationists.[6][7]. Reagan’s campaign staff, however, denied any connection.[8] At the same event, Strom Thurmond (who was by then a Republican senator from South Carolina), declared: “We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states.” Thurmond had been an ardent segregationist, although he publicly opposed segregation after 1970.”

      Dec 11, 2007 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • josh2008

      And really, if your identifying as libertarian while supporting state’s rights philosophies and reduce the disagreement between your beliefs and other libertarians as just a few “issues” you really need to get schooled in libertarian philosophies. What disagreements are they? What are the basic principles of their libertarian philosophy and your own? What type of libertarianism do they most agree with? Objectivism, classical liberalism, individual anarchist, Left-libertarianism, Right-libertarianism, minarchism, anarcho-capitalism, civil libertarianism, libertarian socialism?

      Before trumpeting libertarian talking points like you are the apostle of some new Messiah you should learn a little about the philosophy itself by reading from those individuals that originated the ideas. Until then don’t try to tell libertarians what a libertarian should believe.

      Again, a good start would be to Wiki… and then read from specific libertarian philosophers.





      Dec 11, 2007 at 11:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • josh2008

      Hey guys. I recently read from this this site that has taken an stand against the politico-bot spammers. You should read it. It’s f*cking priceless. Spread the counter-revolution. Save our inter-webs.


      Dec 11, 2007 at 11:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Evan

      Hey My name is Evan. I’m gay and used to be a Ron Paul supporter, He clearly is against same sex marriage and doesnt support gay rights. He needs to be honest with the American people and stop playing games. Our country will go into panic if Ron Paul is elected president.

      Dec 19, 2007 at 9:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DatONEfoo

      OMG! you people. You should quit using preconceptions and stereo types to define individuals you don’t understand. Listen to Ron Paul. Apply his ideas with yourself and how it affects you personally. He’s not against same sex marriages. No where does he say that. He supports the rights of individuals, gay or straight.

      I believe that Ron Paul can seriously make this country better; then we can help the world by setting the standard of what FREEDOM truly means.


      Dec 19, 2007 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LFCnyc

      It’s surprising how little time people spend researching issues; so many false conclusions have been posted here. I would highly recommend the following Wikipedia link, because it one of the most comprehensive sites for clearly stating Libertarian stands on gay rights:

      I do agree that the small sound bites the media permits us to hear from Ron Paul, can be ambiguously interpretted.

      A couple things I will highlight:

      1. Ron Paul is not against same sex marriage. He is against the Federal government getting involved in ANY laws whatsoever involving marriage.

      2. As far as all the conspiracy theories posted here, about an ulterior motive to allow discrimination at the state level, that is false. Ron Paul’s policies assume that states should also follow libertarian concepts. There was actually a precedent in 2000 in Vermont. The only Libertarian elected legislator sided with the conservatives on a gay marriage issue. The local Vermont Libertarian party REMOVED their endorsement and this person changed affiliation to Republican. Now tell me, have you ever seen the Democrats expel ANYBODY in their party when they have taken a stand that discriminates against gays?

      All these allegations that Ron Paul is anti-gay are just frivolous. I am gay, and part of the reason I support Libertarians is because I feel they are far MORE supportive of gay rights than EITHER major party.

      I think the problem here is that almost everybody in the US has lived their life under an era of “big government”; that they find it difficult to accept or even understand anything that drastically deviates from the current system. Everybody gets the same old propaganda from the Democrats and Republicans, and is unable to think outside of the box.

      Dec 22, 2007 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin Johnson

      I notice many people seem to think leave it to the states means the states can do whatever it wants, however the states are also republics and have a constitution they should be following.

      In our republic sovereignty rests in the people not the state or federal government we grant some of that sovereignty to them in manor limited by the constitutions (state and federal). The fact that the states trample their own constitutions, just means we have a lot more to fix then just the federal government. We cannot look for a president to work on changing anything other then the federal government; it isn’t in his power to fix the states.

      Only our republic form of government can give us all the freedoms we as gay people are searching for as it is the only form of government that protects the individual from the tyranny of the masses. Trying to legislate that people accept us is no better then trying to legislate that people hate us. Both are unconstitutional as we have not granted the governments these powers.

      I would also like to point out this is all mute as the nation is bankrupt, and the dollar has been inflated to unknown ends. We are all going to be in a position that makes this a trivial matter very soon straight or gay.

      Ron Paul is the only one who offers us some form of freedom, both the democrats and the republicans offer us nothing more then business as usual. Besides we all know both the republicans and the democrats lie without any guilt, and that alone should make them unelectable.

      O.K. I have one more comment to make, trying to stereotype Ron Paul supporters as Paulites, Paultards, spam bots, or anything else, just shows you have the same mentality as any homophobe, you just aim your hate at a different group.

      Dec 22, 2007 at 1:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • zed

      Will someone please tell the Paul supporters that we already tried the Articles of Confederation? Ron is about 225 years too late.

      Jan 1, 2008 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike

      Dr Paul will treat us all the same. He makes me feel like it must have felt to hear Dr King speak. We finally have hope again. We are no longer “gay”-Americans, “black”-Americans, “hispanic”-Americans, “christian”-Americans, “jewish”-Americans, “muslim”-Americans, no. We are all just AMERICANS!!

      Jan 8, 2008 at 5:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Susan Ashley

      He also advocates that marriage is for procreation-what about us straight people who can’t have kids, doees this mean that’s off limits as well.

      Feb 1, 2008 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim

      sodomites aren’t really gay now are they?

      Feb 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Han

      What does he think about all other legal implications? Can American sponsor his partner to live in the state and so on?

      Mar 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greg

      Paul opposes federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman. Paul believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states. For this reason, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.” Paul stated that “Americans understandably fear” the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.

      In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices [or] orientation” and “any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.” If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage.

      In 1999, he voted for a House amendment (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) to prohibit the federal funding of joint adoption of children to individuals unrelated by blood or marriage. If passed, the amendment would have prevented same-sex couples adopting children in the District of Columbia because no government money would be allowed to be spent on vetting prospective same-sex parents or registering such adoptions.

      May 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adp

      All corners of America. Long Island, New York. I support Ron Paul.

      May 22, 2008 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Donny

      As a die-hard liberal gay nut, I am fascinated by Ron Paul for so many reasons. When any other candidate is asked about gay marriage, they immediately go into what they believe to be right or wrong. Ron Paul on the other hand, goes immediatly into the realm of freedom. I personally think he doesn’t feel very compassionate of the lgbt community, however, he knows that’s just his opinion and he doesn’t let it have ANY bearing on his political posistions. That’s just brilliant, and the way our governemnt should be! Me marrying my partner is none of the governments business….or anyone’s business for that matter. Get you views and points and judgements out of my life, and I’ll do the same for you. We can all live our lives the way we want and be happy!

      If he was still in this election I would do something I thought would never happen…I would vote republican.

      Jun 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jess

      im gay so being able to have these rights would be awsome instead of having to hide what i am

      Oct 22, 2008 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Valerie


      No he is right, you are counting America only,and even then if you go from America POST revolution he is right.

      Marriage predates any government and has been a socio-cultural spiritual/religious ceremony dating back BEFORE their were governments.

      The best solution is the one where neither end imposes their morality on the other AND both can do what they want. Personally I think what some on both ends of the argument is worst than the morality of either side because it is tearing the country apart.

      Nov 7, 2008 at 3:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fazsha

      The John Calvin inspired “Marriage Ordinance of Geneva” was the first modern day requirement to have the state register or sanction marriages. Ron Paul is right once again – it used to be just something handled by the churches.

      Don’t ever try to out-argue Ron Paul. He does his research before he talks, and you do not.

      Jan 6, 2009 at 2:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • R Blair

      You forget he was a republican long before his claims of being a Libertarian.


      Read it and weep…

      Nov 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve

      According to RON Paul whom I support on many other issues: The governmental status quo must be maintained in that MARRAIGE is strictly between a one man and one woman as “defined” by Federal Standards. In other words Libertarians do NOT advocate EQUAL RIGHTS period.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mira


      Ron Paul has voted in favor of DADT, spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (which would constitutionally define marriage as one man and one woman), and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act (which would have protected DOMA from hearings regarding its legality). He also said that legalizing gay marriage at the federal level would be “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty”.

      Lrn 2 research, ppl. And don’t listen to the manchildren who post RON PAUL 2012 everywhere. They don’t know the full story about Ron Paul.

      Oct 24, 2011 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • solid


      legalizing gay marriage at the federal level would be “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty”.

      No shit. It would be an expansion of federal power outside what is allowed by the constitution. You can expect anything that is an expansion of federal power to be unsupported by Paul.

      It is YOU who lack understanding.

      Ron doesn’t support “issues”, he supports the Constitution read from original intent. He’s literally a modern day founding father.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • solid


      legalizing gay marriage at the federal level would be “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty”.

      No shit. It would be an expansion of federal power outside what is allowed by the constitution. Just as if you passed a resolution stating that straights could not marry. You can expect anything that is an expansion of federal power to be unsupported by Paul.

      It is YOU who lack understanding.

      Ron doesn’t stand for any one issue, he views any issue through the the Constitution read from original intent–The way it was supposed to be. He’s literally a modern day founding father.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • paul

      I would not mind heterosexual marriage as long as “those people” didn’t impose their will on me. They can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want, but “those” straights better not impose “their” relationship on me.


      Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.