Not that I think he's going to be president, but Ron Paul is attracting the support of a cadre of some pretty charged-up Republicans who may have an impact on their party's future.
Paul's position on same-sex marriage is muddy, perhaps intentionally. But when, in an interview, ABC's John Stossel asked Paul "Should gays be allowed to marry?" his (initial) answer was "Sure." That later gets qualified, but in and of itself it sets him apart not just from the fundies but also from mainstream Republicans-and Democrats-running for the highest office.
When pushed, alas, Paul says that government shouldn't be in the marriage licensing business, but it's not like hetero couples are going to give up all the government-provided rights and benefits they receive by getting hitched.
Paul also reveals a deeper antipathy when he says of gay couples, "just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else." That sounds more like the Texas congressman who, while opposing a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act which, in part, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages (even when recognized under state law) for purposes such as filing joint federal taxes, Social Security inheritance and spousal immigration. And Paul voted in 1999 to bar the District of Columbia from [using federal funds for adoptions by unmarried parnters]. ( Some key Paul positions are summarized here.)
Even so, that initial "Sure" was nice to see.
Update. Paul's gay supporters say the 1999 amendment he voted for, regarding adoptions in the District of Columbia, involved federal funding for adoptions by unmarried couples, and it was the federal funding that Paul opposed. However, it appears that the amendment did not seek to limit the total amount of federal funds to D.C., but to prohibit the use of federal funds by the D.C. government for any operations that would facilitate adoption by unmarried partners. (H.R. 2587; H.AMDT. 356: An amendment to prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.)
More. Back in 1998, our own contributing author David Boaz advocated Privatize Marriage: A simple solution to the gay-marriage debate. But I have to agree with our frequent commenter Avee, who shares:
I, too, would prefer government to stop licensing marriage. But it's not politically likely that, anytime soon, Washington is going to revoke all the hundreds of special rights that government grants to married couples, in the tax code and otherwise. That being said, does Paul support stopping the government from discriminating against same-sex couples by giving them all the rights it gives to opposite-sex couples whose marriages it recognizes (for as long as it continues to recognize opposite-sex marriages)? It would appear Paul does NOT support this.
18 Comments for “Ron Paul Stirs Things Up (a Bit)”
posted by cowb0y on
"Not that I think he’s going to be president…." Curious why in particular you needed to clarify that? And just for the record, Ron Paul is attracting the support of a wide range of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents (yes, I’ll give them their very own capital letter). "Alas"? Marriage has historically been a religious rite, which is why religious people should want very much to keep it quite separate from any civil, contractual, government-recognized union between two (or more) people. I personally would prefer to see civil unions as the only form of government-recognized contract, and leave marriage to religion and church. This would protect marriage from government, and allow each religion to define it however they wish. Regarding Ron Paul’s vote on the D.C. legislation you mentioned: He was voting, as is customary, against excessive government spending, and the amendment in question was not germane to the bill. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation Yes, being a libertarian, in addition to having the freedom to live your own life, also means not forcing your cultural views on other people. Should people in Texas be able to dictate to people in Massachusetts how to define marriage? It goes both ways. As a gay man, libertarian, and patriotic American, I support Ron Paul. There is no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is more committed to helping us remain a free and prosperous nation with the individual liberties that our forefathers fought so hard to bequeath to us and safeguard through our Constitution.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ron Paul and his base within the Republican Party has the potential to return the party to constitutional conservatism. I cannot imagine a change I’d more like to see. As Barry Goldwater predicted, the Religious Right has ruined the Republican Party.
My political roots are in the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party, and I’d still be a Republican if the Republican Party still stood for traditional conservative principles. It doesn’t, so I’m not. In fact, I’m an active Democrat. But I’m in exile and I’ll return in a flash when and if the Republican Party comes to its senses.
posted by ETJB on
Paul also pushed for a bill that would overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
The man is simple not a libertarian, but pretends to be one, mainly to raise money for his Congressional campaigns and get some publicity.
posted by Avee on
I, too, would prefer government to stop licensing marriage. But it’s not politically likely that, anytime soon, Washington is going to revoke all the hundreds of special rights that government grants to married couples, in the tax code and otherwise. That being said, does Paul support stopping the government from discriminating against same-sex couples by giving them all the rights it gives to opposite-sex couples whose marriages it recognizes (for as long as it continues to recognize opposite-sex marriages)? It would appear Paul does NOT support this.
posted by Mark on
I’m a Ron Paul supporter, but his positions on SOME gay issues are, unfortunately, a bit muddled, not clearly thought out or just plain wrong.
Ron does clearly support allowing the states to recognize gay marriage if they wish and he has no strong personal beliefs or hostility against gays. In a radio interview on a religious station, he refused to condemn homosexuality as a sin.
However, the idea that Ron is insincere is nothing but a smear. Most libertarians agree with him on at least 90% of his platfrom.
We badly need an antiwar fiscal conservative in the White House who will respect the Constitution.
posted by ETJB on
Congressman Ron Paul ran under the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, mostly to have a war chest for a GOP run.
I suspect he is doing something similar again, while also helping the GOP win libertarian voters, without making any platform/policy conessions. I would argue that Dennis K. is playing a very similar role in the primary.
Paul is simply not a Libertairan. At best, he is a paleolibertarian, but is probably more of a right-wing federalist. He sometimes has a good idea or two, i.e. the U.S. Voter Freedom Act, but I do not really think that he will ‘respect’ the Constitution.
The eagerness of Libertarians and Constitution Party members to jump on the Paul banwagon makes me wonder; how serious do most libertarians take civil liberties issues?
posted by Brian Miller on
Ron Paul supported DOMA when he was out of Congress, which created a federal definition of marriage that is imposed on state governments.
Ron Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act and the omnibus marriage benefits bill, both of which deepened government involvement in marriage and imposed increased federal restrictions.
Meanwhile, he certainly hasn’t proposed a single bill to reduce federal involvement in marriage.
As a typical Republican politician, Paul is good at talking out of both sides of his mouth — but his record in the House is as a big-government, social-conservative social engineer — not a “libertarian.”
The eagerness of Libertarians and Constitution Party members to jump on the Paul banwagon makes me wonder; how serious do most libertarians take civil liberties issues?
Well, considering that the Constitution Party isn’t even remotely “libertarian,” and the LP is running its own candidates who are great on civil liberties (in contrast to Republican Paul), I’d say “pretty highly.”
Of course, as a Democrat yourself, I didn’t (and don’t) see you asking the same question of your fellow Dems when they rushed to support the candidacy of John Kerry (who strongly promoted state DOMA laws and called his first press conference after losing the election to condemn Massachusetts marriage equality). I won’t even list all the anti-gay-marriage stuff that present Democrats, of whom you’re broadly supportive, have done.
And before you jump back to lecture me on the whole “electability” thing, keep in mind that you cannot have it both ways. Either principled adherence to civil liberties is sacrosanct, or it’s something to be thrown away in order to get elected. You can’t hold the guys you don’t like to rigid principle while slacking for your own candidate.
posted by Brian Miller on
Ron Paul and his base within the Republican Party has the potential to return the party to constitutional conservatism.
Huh?
Ron Paul doesn’t believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, and also claims that the Constitution gives state governments the “right” to “regulate” sexual conduct based on “local standards.”
I guess tomorrow’s “constitutional conservative” is today’s “crazy constitutionally illiterate nutjob theocrat.”
posted by C Green on
Yes, Brian, it’s just too bad for us gay folk in red states who would be imprisoned or worse if state governments had that “right” to regulate sexual conduct based on “local standards”.
We’re expendable I guess — collateral damage if you will.
posted by Avee on
OK, this is a little murky. But in 1999 Paul voted for an amendment to prohibit any federal dollars going to DC from being used to fund any government operation that supported the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
The amendment he supported did not seek to limit the amount of total federal funds going to DC, just to prohibit the use of those funds for adoption by unmarried partners.
Source:
[H.R. 2587; H.AMDT.356
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment no. 2 printed in H.Rept. 106-263 to Prohibit Any Funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.]
posted by cowb0y on
ETJB: “The man is simple not a libertarian, but pretends to be one, mainly to raise money for his Congressional campaigns and get some publicity.”
Lol, since when did being a libertarian become a cash cow? As for the rest of your comment, sheesh.
“I do not really think that he will ‘respect’ the Constitution.”
What has he been doing for the last 20 years in office, then?
Throwing the Constituion under the bus like both major parties? Voting for illegal wars, illegal domestic spying, every-increasing federal expansion? What are you smoking, man?
“[H]ow serious do most libertarians take civil liberties issues?”
Dude, pass the hit! WTF?! So, by “paleolibertarian,” you mean “real libertarian”? I’ll take it.
Regarding government preferential treatment of marrieds: I think eventually we will see this expanded to encompass civil unions and other nontraditional supportive relationships, through a patchwork of changes (at various levels of government), over time. Certainly no one is ever going to try to take away those benefits (and get elected).
@Brian Miller: The Consitution does not mention a “right to privacy,” and this is an issue that has been debated and adjudicated substiantially over the years, so to paint him as Constitutionally illiterate on the issue is incorrect, and puts your own level of understanding in question (google, it really works!).
Under oath, we don’t have a “right to privacy,” nor in the investigation of a criminal matter by the police. If your neighbor knows something about you, they can legally tell the world about it. In addition, presumably most people will agree that a “right to privacy” does not mean “a right to do anything one pleases so long as no one knows about it.”
Which brings us to the “community standards” part. Most reasonable people (never say “all”) will agree that there are acts which should not be allowed, even if they don’t directly violate someone else’s rights. Yelling “Fire!” doesn’t *force* people to flee in panic, does it? A rational person would simply look around, assess the situation, and act in a reasonable manner depending on the information available.
In addition, the fact that an act occurs inside one’s home is not automatic proof against society’s interest in it (and I say that as a libertarian, mind you). For example, animal welfare issues (and certainly you will agree that there is no mention of “animal rights” in the Constitution), child treatment (not at the level of abuse, per se), viewing child pornography via the Internet, etc. Even a libertarian society would have certain issues to deal with in this respect (strictly speaking, does a chicken have rights; the right to be free of pain; the right to life?).
So, basically, Ron Paul’s position is that society has the right at the State level (not the Federal) to regulate even private conduct which it deems to be unacceptable. Now, what specifically a State *should* regulate is an entirely separate matter, and is not going to be resolved here or anywhere else, for that matter, to anyone’s satisfaction, ever.
Let me close by saying that I am primarily trying to clarify Ron Paul’s views on the proper role of government as derived from the authority set forth in the Constitution. I personally don’t expect to see him jump up on a stage waving a huge rainbow flag and shouting “Free my people!” anytime soon. But, overall, he stands for individual freedom (and responsibility), is not homophobic or a religious zealot, and is not going to lead us into a Big Brother/Big Sister police state, where we have the freedom to marry (not!), but not to engage in free political discourse without ending up in a secret prison for political dissidents…I mean “terrorists.”
And how ’bout that dollar, huh? If the Fed just lowers the interest rate enough (-15%?), it won’t come crashing to the ground, bringing our entire economy with it (actually, the Chinese and Japanese would be happy to “come to our assistance,” no strings attached, of course). Anyone who thinks that things will be “just fine” if we elect one of the “front-runners” from *either* party needs to check their carbon monoxide alarm.
posted by Another Steve on
I agree that answering “sure” to the marriage question represents a welcome advance, and puts him ahead of Hillary and Obama, not to mention Rudy, in my book (leaving aside the outright bigots such as Hickabee and Romney, et al).
As for the adoption vote in 1999, even though it did not actually seek to limit overal federal funding for D.C., I could see how Paul and his staff might have viewed it as an anti-funding measure. They were wrong to do so, as the purpose of the amendment was clearly anti-gay (it only limited spending funds for processing adoptions by unrelated partners, leaving funding in place for hetero married couples). I think Paul’s gay supporters need to own up that this was a bad vote. Hopefully, Paul has become more sensitive to using the federal government to discrimination against gay people since then (as his “sure” response to the gay marriage question would suggest).
posted by Brian Miller on
Ron Paul did indeed vote to ban gay adoption in DC, and has never explained the vote beyond it being an “anti-funding” vote. (He did go on to vote FOR the rest of the funding, however).
Ron Paul’s a Republican. You’ll have a hard time finding out gay supporters of his because they’re difficult to find and the Ron Paul campaign generally doesn’t welcome anyone who thinks outside of their knee-jerk paradigm. Queer folks are viewed as a nuisance at best, and dangerous at worse, and I’ve been told by many “Ron Paul small-l libertarians” that gay people are just going to have to give up our liberties so they can get theirs.
They’re not libertarians — never were, never will be. Period.
posted by Mark on
Brian:
The Ron Paul campaign has in no way discouraged gay people from supporting it. I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it is false.
posted by ETJB on
For the record, I was actually a member of the Libertarian Party during my junior and senior year of high school. I left the party, when I found out more about what it stood for.
In college, a good friend of mine was a member of the Libertarian Party and we worked together on election law reform issues. I know a great deal about what the various minor parties practice and preach.
Congressman Ron Paul is simply not a libertarian. In 1988 he got the LP ticket, mainly use raise money to use for his Congressional campaign. I suspect something similar is happening here.
He has been raising an impressive amount of money, and I suspect that after he bows out of the race, he will have a good chunk left for other issues.
The GOP loves him much like the Democrats like Dennis K. They appeal to certain independent/minor party members without either major party having to change their platform or even address campaign law reform issues.
At most, Paul is a “paleolibertarian”, but he seems more like a State’s rights conservative. Look it up.
Most true Libertarians I have know and worked with, believe in a right to privacy. Yes, some bicker about abortion, but certainly not with birth control and adult human sexuality.
posted by cowb0y on
@ETJB: Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative, libertarian-leaning Constitutionalist. I don’t think any of his supporters would argue with that fact. I think that most libertarians would say that the U.S. Constitution is the most libertarian, freedom-promoting and -protecting document ever adopted by a government throughout human history.
It’s funny that you will hear some people accuse Paul of being a libertarian, not a real conservative, while others accuse him of being a conservative, not a real libertarian. People don’t support him because of what he calls himself (unlike the “major” candidates), but because of what he believes.
Brian: “…gay people are just going to have to give up our liberties so they can get theirs.”
I am an individual American before I am a gay man. Without my rights as an individual American, I have no rights at all. While I dream of a world in which all people will be treated according to their human value, I won’t be sold the false god of minority politics. Minorities will always have to deal with bullshit, that’s human sociology. But in a world where we are all free, secure, and prosperous, cultural hatreds and scapegoating will fall away like a choking vine cut off at the roots. Fear breeds hatred, and those who foster fear hold us back, but we are the ones who give them that power over ourselves.
posted by ETJB on
Congressman Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. The fact that people keep having to make-up various additions to describe his beliefs helps to illustrate this point.
Congressman Ron Paul is someone who knows how to talk the libertarian talk, especially when he wants gulible people to open up their wallets. However, an objective look at his record shows that he does not walk the libertarian walk.
In 1988 he got lots of money from Libertarians and I thinnk he plans to do so again. In the 1990s his newsletter and campaign catered to a wide range of right-wingers, racists, conspiricy buffs (i.e. the income tax is unconstitutional), populists, religious zealots and libertarians.
The U.S. Constitution is not a libertarian document, because the founding fathers were not really libertarians. They had a lot of different, conficting viewpoints, none of them matched up with the left or right-wing libertarian factions, which did not exist at the time.
Much of the Constitution was a compromise, and other parts were left vague, for other people to sort out.
Face it, if somehow Congressman Paul were elected President, the concentration camps would be opened for business.
posted by cowb0y on
ETJB: “Congressman Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. The fact that people keep having to make-up various additions to describe his beliefs helps to illustrate this point.”
cowb0y: “People don’t support him because of what he calls himself (unlike the “major” candidates), but because of what he believes.”
ETJB, what part of the above confuses you? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU, HE, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLS HIM. No one is supporting Ron Paul because someone calls him a libertarian, a Libertarian, a Republican, a Constitutionalist, or any of hundreds of other multisyllabic terms.
ETJB: “The U.S. Constitution is not a libertarian document, because the founding fathers were not really libertarians.”
cowb0y: “[T]he U.S. Constitution is the most libertarian, freedom-promoting and -protecting document ever adopted by a government throughout human history.”
WTF? RIF!
ETJB: “Face it, if somehow Congressman Paul were elected President, the concentration camps would be opened for business.”
Um….yeeeeah.