The odds that Rep. Ron Paul will ever be president are very slim. But it’s still nice to see him best Mitt (amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage) Romney and win the presidential straw poll at CPAC—the Conservative Action Political Conference—thanks largely to his energized young supporters.
For those who don’t know, Paul was one of just five GOP members of Congress who voted to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And during his 2008 presidential run, when John Stossel (then of ABC’s 20/20) asked if gay people should be allowed to marry, Paul, an opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, replied “Sure…I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage function. I don’t think it’s a state function; I think it’s a religious function.”
15 Comments for “Wouldn’t It be Nice If…”
posted by KipEsquire on
Um… http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
posted by another steve on
In the last comment, KipEsquire delights in pointing out that in 2004 Rep. Paul supported the anti-gay marriage amendment. Here’s a newsflash, he also suppported DOMA and DADT, back then.
Rep. Paul’s views have changed, a process he has explained, as he thought through what it means to take a commitment to liberty seriously.
So KipEsquire and other lefties on this list sneer at Paul because, what, he has changed and seen the light? I guess they would prefer that conservatives DON’T change and remain anti-gay. Boy, that would really be a great outcome — for lefty fundraisers, but not for gay people!
posted by BobN on
that would really be a great outcome
Going from supporting legal marriage for heteros and opposing it for gay people to opposing legal marriage for everyone is hardly a “great outcome”. And I’ve yet to hear a proponent of same explain what we’ll do with all the deadbeat hetero men who abandon their wives and children.
posted by Jimmy on
If he thinks marriage is only a religious function, what about people who wish to be married with respect to the secular law, but with no religious context? What threshold of marriage must be crossed over, in Paul’s eyes, that guarantees spousal privilege with respect to the law?
posted by Tom on
Ron Paul, like Bob Barr (the author of DOMA) and others who supported it at the time, have changed their views and now want it repealed. I think that’s a good thing.
The libertarian wing of the Republican Party — as well as the Libertarian Party itself within the broader conservative movement — has been a positive force for “equal means equal” in conservative thinking, building on the groundwork of Barry Goldwater and other earlier spokesmen for constitutional conservatism.
“Equal means equal” in civil marriage can be accomplished two ways. One, and the way the country seems to be headed, is to put gay and lesbian couples on an equal footing with straight couples with respect to civil marriage. The other, which doesn’t seem to be gaining any traction at all, is to eliminate civil marriage altogether, making marriage an entirely private matter.
Paul and Barr seem to be aligned with the latter course. I don’t think that view is going anywhere, fast or slow, but the principle remains “equal means equal”.
posted by BobN on
The difference between the two men is that Bob Barr can articulate — and support — why two men or two women should be able to marry and be recognized by the federal government. Paul just sends up the pie-in-the-sky “get the govt out of marriage” silliness.
posted by Tweets that mention Wouldn’t It be Nice If… — IGF Culture Watch -- Topsy.com on
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by KipEsquire, RollingDoughnut. RollingDoughnut said: RT @KipEsquire: Ignorance of the Paul is no excuse: http://is.gd/uOmeqJ v . http://is.gd/3rw1Ek #tlot #lgbt #fb […]
posted by Pauliji on
Ron Paul is the one who published the newsletter containing this tidbit, by his claim someone else wrote the article, but he approved its publication:
“Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
posted by another steve on
Yes, Pauliji, we’ve already established that Ron Paul used to hold anti-gay views. Now he supports gays serving openly in the military and says he doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage. So, what is your point?
As I said to KipEsquire, the gay left’s view seems to be that if you were once a homophobe, you should just stay a homophobe because we’re never going to get over it and never going to work with you. Gee, that’s a great strategy!
posted by BobN on
says he doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage
The devil is, as usual, in the details. His lack of a problem has a lot to do with his position that same-sex marriages would have no legal weight whatsoever. Sort of like toy poodle marriages in the suburbs.
Whoop-de-fricken-do.
posted by PIL on
I’m a libertarian and I don’t like Ron Paul. #1. He’s anti-war. #2. He’s anti-Israel. #3 His followers are too radical.
I’m a John Stossel libertarian, too bad he ain’t running.
New Budget, New Tax Hikes: Obama does it again.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-budget-new-tax-hikes-obama-does-it.html
posted by Jorge on
Given a choice between Ron Paul and Ann Coulter, give me that blond haired she-demon any day of the week.
posted by Hunter on
“Sure…I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage function. I don’t think it’s a state function; I think it’s a religious function.”
Maybe Paul should read a little history. Marriage has always been more of a state function than a religious function — it’s a contract, and churches don’t enforce contracts, the state does.
Nice try, but it’s not going to wash.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Pfffft. In that sense, gays are already “allowed to marry” in all 50 states!
posted by Tom on
Exactly. I’ve been to a half dozen religious marriages, all performed and recognized under Jewish religious law. I gather that there are several Christian denominations that perform religious marriages, as well. Who marries and who doesn’t under religious law is up to the religions, each to their own theology.
Its civil marriage that is the political issue, not religious marriage.