Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more.
He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.
This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level.
He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much.
I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing.
CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion.
He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.
Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments.
Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.
I would like to attempt a thought experiment and see if you could buy this scenario:
Imagine if Ron Paul becomes President (yeah, right, but hang with me) and he does give states the right to do all kinds of things within the constitution. (Side note: I think banning the practice of Islam is unconstitutional due to the first amendment)
So let's say that some Southern states ban abortion and ban gay marriage. That sucks but there is some elegance here that you didn't notice. California is not about to ban abortion or gay marriage, in fact now they have fully promoted gay marriage, and legalized marijuana. Colorado has done all that and decided to exempt themselves from all of the SOPA stuff as well (they aren't as under Hollywood's thumb as California is).
While it sucks for those gay couples in the south while they grow up, it should be obvious that they (and others that support these rights) will move to a new state. A state can't hold those couples in their state and refuse them to leave and states can't go to war with each other. So now you have two groups of people: those people in more "civilized" places like California and Colorado are happy and those people in the traditional south are happy too.
There is an elegance in letting complex, controversial issues be decided at lower levels and leave the top level government only worry about states violating a core set of rules. And you better believe that a constitutionalist like Ron Paul would enforce state adherence to the Bill of Rights. I would hope that at least that part would be indisputable.
I agree it can be messy. I agree that some people don't get what they want immediately (they might have to relocate). But at least they don't have to leave the country. At least they still eventually find like-minded people and influence their own local governments to get what they want.
Another point I want to make is that marriage is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and neither is having an abortion or smoking weed. And you'll only hear a libertarian note that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights outside of those explicitly guaranteed. So while you believe that these are rights (and I agree with you) not everyone does, and more importantly, not all of the Judicial branch does.
Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam?
Actually... Paul's "We the People Act" seeks to expressly place state laws on religion, sexual orientation and abortion outside of any possible constitutional review (essentially it's a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, targeted at the issues that provoke the most frothing at the mouth from social conservatives). So if he gets his way, yes, a state could pass a law banning Islam and there'd be no recourse.
He also wants to make it legal for states to legalize marijuana, despite that fact that he (I assume) would personally oppose the use of marijuana.
His personal opinion on the particular issue isn't what's motivating him, it's his opinion that it should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government.
More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1]
"Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now.
It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty.
That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same
pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and
preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions
on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power.
Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument).
The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway.
(I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.
On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.
Excuse me, what? He supported both the Defense of Marriage Act as well co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Act, "which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." That sentence alone is so offensive to my sensibilities as a citizen as to permanently disqualify him from my vote.
First off, Wikipedia is not a credible source. It is controlled by a group of editors who are leftists, and in many cases factual corrections are undone by them simply because they disagree with the editors politics.
Secondly that page agrees with me:
"Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[197] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004."
"He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[201] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[202][203] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[202]"
Thus, Ron Paul, directly quoted, endorses gay marriage. Something you can't say for Barack Obama.
"Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations."
I cut all the parts which contradict these because they are due to misinterpretations or assertions based on legislation that don't include any statements by Paul, or an explanation for why Paul might support some act. Paul has to pick and choose legislation carefully because most legislation contains both constitutional and unconstitutional provisions.
You can't cite him supporting some bad legislation unless you give the reasons he supported it, especially when it conflicts with direct statements. Well, you can, but that's just spin.
Now, I've spent time debating a wikipage, when you didn't provide even an argument for your position.
If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.
I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue.
It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality).
Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.
Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable.
Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them.
If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are.
And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary.
And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?
Yes I believe that because as a libertarian he would oppose using state power to give one group an advantage over another.
A libertarian is happy to allow any two or more adults to marry should they wish to do so. A libertarian just asks that no one's marriage is recognized by the state because it's not a matter that the state should be involved in. Can you really say that after gay marriage is legal everywhere (which will never happen) that marriage is actually equal? What about polygamists? I'm perfectly happy to allow them to obtain licenses to get married but it seems easier to just say government has no proper role in what is a private affair. This seems to make your case even better because it just removes from politics what is not a political issue.
Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person.
Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved.
It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one.
There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry.
That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.
Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"?
I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay?
What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination.
Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether.
I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no?
Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.
The difference we have here is that I don't think it's anti-discrimination laws that change society. It's communication and confrontation of evil that changes society, and that happens over time.
Anti-discrimination laws didn't pop out of nowhere; the idea had been building over time, and when they hit the courts, new laws where made, instead of addressing the issues with the laws that were already made.
You argue that the status quo remains unless something is done - I agree, however that something is not law. There's a word for forcing morality on people: bigotry.
Allowing black people to use public roads is a matter of upholding existing law: All people are created equal. It took a lot of time, but eventually America began to understand the inconsistency of that law - A law that wasn't forced on people, but rather one that people chose to support when they supported the revolution. Change didn't happen by law. The change happened by people no longer standing for it.
The fact is, whether the group of people is gay, black, or whatever, there will always be a people group that is being discriminated against by someone. 20 years from now, we'll be coming up with more laws about group x, and pundits will say, "This is just like the gay rights wars of the early 21st century - we need more laws!", just as much as gay rights pundits are making comparisons to mid-20th century race relations, and demanding more laws to address an issue that people are already changing.
The point is this: laws don't change people. You can't enforce morality on people. Enforcement only creates bitterness and more problems. Change happens because of cultural influence, and that cultural influence is the input to the change function, not the output of f(law).
Your last point is that state-recognized marriages get tax benefits, but that's an issue with the tax code, not marriage. Attempting to fix the problem by defining/redefining marriage is like spraying air freshener without flushing the toilet. The problem is the tax code, not marriage. If you remove the concept of a marriage license, there are no tax benefits, for anyone, no matter their sexuality. The state simply has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's an inherently personal matter. Subsequently, Ron Paul's removal of the IRS also addresses the larger problem.
This is why I keep touting "freedom freedom freedom", because that's the core principle from which the solution is grown. Get the government out of the way, so that people, together, can work out problems. Enforcing morality by law encourages segregation. Staying out of it, thereby forcing people to deal with themselves and others without running to mommy government...that's the long term solution.
Freedom solves all problems. It's arguably the ether of human relationships.
I would note that you are on to something: Ron Paul is unlikely to ever "support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable" but his reasons are likely more constitutionally-based than personal. But, either way, that is not the same thing as "against gay rights". Refusing affirmative action is not the same as promoting the segregation.
But saying "states have the right to legally segregate!" is tantamount to promoting the segregation, even if he adds to that "states should have the right to segregate without federal intervention, even if I personally would oppose that segregation."
What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates.
They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.
True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others.
You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.
Which ban? All I can find is his support of DOMA, and the Marriage Protection Act, which would have prevented Federal judges from ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA.
Further, he supports human rights in virtually every context, including marriage.
Paul wants the government out of the marriage business. Obama wants the government in the marriage business, AND he wants to keep gay marriage banned.
Thus if support of DOMA is your criteria, then Paul is a better choice than Obama.
Of course this has nothing to do with SOPA. It's just the leftist talking points for bashing Paul whenever his name comes up so we have to respond to these insinuations.
Yet he co-sponsored a bill that would make DOMA impossible to get rid of in any way. That doesn't count as much as voting for it?
Also: "If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act," So there's why he didn't vote for it or against it, or even abstain.
He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.