The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is running an attack ad against Ron Paul, accusing him of supporting same-sex marriage. And they’ve created an entire Wrong on Marriage website to attack him.
Actually, while Paul opposes the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, he supports the Defense of Marriage Act. Somewhat muddying his support for the act (which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages), he also says the issue should be left to the states to decide.
But in the GOP field, Paul is viewed as a pro-gay marriage candidate—earning him the ire of the religious right.
Also of interest, Slate’s David Weigel looks at Ron Paul newsletters from 20 years ago that had some disparaging comments about gays. Gay sex columnist and activist Dan Savage tells Weigel, astutely:
“Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies … 1990 was 21 years ago—an eternity in the evolution of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. What has he said about us lately?”
More. From Why Ron Paul Matters, a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the Cato Institute:
Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century.
Wouldn’t that be nice.
6 Comments for “More on Ron Paul”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is running an attack ad against Ron Paul, accusing him of supporting same-sex marriage.
Well, yeah. NOM is flexing its muscle. With the exception of Huntsman, Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who didn’t sign the “NOM Marriage Pledge”:
(1) Support sending a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
(2) Nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.
(3) Defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.
(4) Establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.
(5) Advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
I don’t know why NOM is pounding on Ron so hard, since he hasn’t got a prayer of winning the nomination. Maybe its a demonstration of what they’ll do in 2016 if any Republican candidate for president strays from orthodoxy.
I will say this for NOM: They did a masterful job of locking down the Republican field for 2012. When NOM first fronted the pledge, I thought only the hard-core social conservatives — Bachmann, Perry, Santorum — would sign it. It turns out that Romney and Gingrich were forced to genuflect, too.
So encapsulated above is what we have to look forward to during 2012-2016 if the Republican nominee prevails in the election — the FMA, Supreme Court justices and other federal judges pledged to support “original intent” and the last 200 years of constitutional law be damned, a vigorous defense of DOMA, an administration instituting investigations of “harassment” of the Maggie Gallagher and her ilk, and overturning marriage equality in the District.
It will be a fun four years, making 2004-2008 look like a picnic.
posted by Hunter on
Much as I admire Dan Savage, he’s not always on the ball. Ron Paul supports DOMA, but thinks the question of gay rights should be left to the states. That says: 1) forget about Constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as equality under the law), and 2) if states want to discriminate against gays, that’s fine by him. I don’t quite get why it’s OK for states to do something the feds shouldn’t do — I mean, government is government, right? — but I guess if you’re a libertarian, that kind of conceptual leap is second nature.
posted by another steve on
Once again, the issue is not whether Obama and the Democrats are better on gay issues (they are, though their rhetoric is typically not matched by actions); the issue is whether among the leading GOP contenders, Ron Paul is much better than Romney, Gingrich, and the rest. And the answer is he is. Having a leading GOP contender who opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, refused to sign the noxious anti-gay pledge of the National Organization for Marriage, and voted to allow gays to serve openly in the military should earn him gay support in the GOP race.
But if your attitude is all Republicans are equally no good and should be equally dismissed, than I hope you enjoy the likely Romney presidency with the GOP in charge of both houses.
posted by Houndentenor on
Marriage is not and never has been a federal issue. States issue marriage licenses and so far as I know the federal government has, up until DOMA accepted any marriage certificate issued by any state. Paul and many others are right on this issue. DOMA is unconstitutional. Yes, that means that gays would be able to get married in some states and not others, but the rules for who may or may not marry are already different from state to state.
We don’t get candidates who are perfect on gay rights. Well, occasionally but only someone completely unelectable. Johnson is very good. He couldn’t even get into the GOP debates. (We’ll see if he can get more attention as a libertarian candidate.) Paul is better than most. We have to give credit where it is due. We already have a sliding scale. Paul’s views are an improvement over any GOP nominee ever and quite a few of the recent Democratic candidates.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think we need to be very careful lauding Ron Paul as a supporter of “equal means equal”. His record does not bear it out.
First, Paul has been and (as far as I know) remains critical of Lawrence, and believes that the Court should have let the Texas sodomy law stand:
Second, Paul supports DOMA (as Stephen correctly pointed out) and has twice sponsored bills the would deny the federal courts jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DOMA. In 2004, Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. 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, orientation, or reproduction” 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“. Had Paul been successful, none of the cases currently challenging DOMA could have been brought.
Third, Paul does not seem to support either same-sex marriage or civil unions in any meaningful sense, because although he supports the rights of gays and lesbians to marry (on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations of any type), he has a caveat that must not “impose” their relationship on anyone else, by which he seems to mean seeking state recognition. Paul has also stated, a number of times, that he personally believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. Putting it all together, it isn’t at all clear (to me, anyway) where Paul stands with respect to state recognition of marriage equality (through marriage or legally-equivalent civil unions), in Texas or any other state.
Fourth, Paul has done some really unsavory things in the closing weeks of the Iowa primary. Paul’s campaign hired Mike Heath, who is by any rational standard an extremist among anti-gay activists, as his “Iowa Statewide Director”, sent him out to talk to 300+ conservative Christian churches, and touted ensorsements obtained by Heath from bottom-feeders like Phil Kayser. I don’t suggest that Ron Paul shares Heath’s extreme views or the views of those who endorsed him, but a candidate who supported “equal means equal” wouldn’t let Mike Heath within a mile and a half of staff, let alone put a man like that in the position of “Statewide Director”.
I think that it is fair to say this – Unlike Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum and Bachmann, (1) Paul did not sign the “Pledge”, (2) Paul supported and continues to support DADT repeal, and (3) Paul opposes the FMA. Beyond that, I would be careful about attributing support to him. I’ll grant you that Paul is better than the others, but it is a low bar.
posted by tomjeffersonIII on
I would dispute the idea that Paul is a libertarian. The standard libertarian argument would be that the 14th Amendment means that State governments cannot discriminate against gay citizens (other part of the Constitution says the same for the federal government_ and have to respect procedural and substantive due process (i.e. privacy rights).
Ron Paul belongs to a group of paleo-conservatives who want to ignore the 14th Amendment or pretend that it has almost no practical meaning.