He voted for repealing DADT.
His position is that the government shouldn’t be involved with marriage on any level.
He sponsored a bill (the Marriage Protection Act) to remove the courts’ ability to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Why on earth would someone who claims to be a stalwart defender of liberty and the Constitution want to block the judiciary from weighing in on whether a law meets constitutional muster or not? Sounds like he supports the Constitution right up until the point that the Constitution may say something he disagrees with.
Well, I’m sure that it doesn’t undercut Paul’s credibility if he makes one exception to what he says is an a sacrosanct principle.
His position is that it “shouldn’t” be involved, but if any level of state or local government wants to prevent any types of marriage, they should be free to go ahead and do so while the federal government does nothing. The end result, as usual, is different from what Paul supporters say: it would lead to a great deal of government involvement in marriage. It just wouldn’t be the federal government.
I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument.
You ought to actually take a look at what he does rather that simply accept at face value the propaganda that his supporters spew forth.
You’re talking about the guy who co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act of 2003.
Edit: Ravenman beat me to it.
OK, that’s two exceptions to his inviolable commitment to the Constitution and limited federal government. But why wouldn’t voters trust this consistent man?
How do we know it wasn’t Lew Rockwell who wrote that, and Ron Paul had no idea what was being co-sponsored in his name?
How is it an exception to his commitment to the Constitution? Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.
He believes the federal government can ban abortion and gay marriage. Two exceptions.
No he believes the states can ban gay marriage. Something I don’t agree with but there is a difference.
This is a great example of why people sense a disingenuousness in a lot of arguments for libertarianism: the Defense of Marriage Act ensures the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, and as a law, it’s disgraceful. Ron Paul says he doesn’t think the government should be involved in marriage, which indicates he should strongly oppose the law for two different reasons, and do what he can to repeal it. Instead, he proposed a law that would restrict federal courts from getting involved in cases regarding the law. Why did he do that? Has he done that for any other law? “The Constitution allows it!” does not answer those questions. If Paul believes the federal government shouldn’t be involved in regulating marriage, he shouldn’t be throwing up roadblocks to the repeal of a law that regulates marriage. Not only that, but he makes it clear he’s opposed to the review of this specific law, not to the concept of judicial review. Evidently he finds gay marriage objectionable to the point where he thinks the courts’ ability to review DOMA should be restricted. To me, that seems like he’s going out of his way to keep that law on the books even though he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved in marriages. How can those ideas be reconciled?
Of course your post also does nothing to explain why Ron Paul believes the government should be involved in abortion even though he says every other decision of this type should be left to the states.
Yes, there’s a difference. It just so happens that it’s a difference that matters to practically no one unless one is a libertarian, in which case it’s of paramount importance. I don’t think libertarianism is disingenuous in itself, but a lot of disingenuous arguments are deployed in its favor. Usually the gist of those arguments is “I think this is wrong, but if enough people are in favor of it and it’s banned at the correct governmental level, it’s fine. It’ll all work out in the end.” This is something else.
The funny thing about this is that Ron Paul usually gets applauded for consistency even by his opponents: he’s been yammering on about the gold standard and isolationism for decades regardless of their unpopularity and unworkability. But here we are discussing exceptions to his belief in federalism. He supports a federal ban on abortion and he’s done what he can to prevent the reversal of the federal ban on gay marriage even though he says he’s opposed to the law in the first place. So where is this constency? Doesn’t this suggest that Paul believes the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be upheld unless he personally finds the issues offensive?
Again, that’s a gross understatement of his beliefs.
He specifically has argued that state governments have the right to discriminate against gay people and to “regulate the private sexual behavior of it’s residents based on their own community standards.”
Now, anyone who believes that state governments can jail people for masturbating, adultery, or engaging in inter-racial sex is not a believer in a small government, a limited government, personal freedom from government interference, or individual liberty.
In short, anyone who claims that Paul favors a “limited government”, “freedom from governmental interference”, or “liberty” either doesn’t understand those concepts, doesn’t understand what Ron Paul actually believes, or is aggressively in denial of reality.
You are making a leap in logic that I cannot take. He says that the states have a right to regulate sexual behavior. Then you assume that if he were empowered to make such a law, he would.
Just because he says that the states have a right to do something, doesn’t mean he believes they should do something.
In fact, he did not say anything at all about what laws Paul would make. He said that someone who believes what Paul believes is not in favor of small government or liberty.
Paul’s stance is that he doesn’t care what the states do even if he personally disagrees with it. (Unless we’re talking about abortion or gay marriage. Those are extra important, which is why they get so much attention in the Constitution.) Paul is the one with the consistency problem here: he says the federal government should not be involved in marriage, but tried to prevent challenges to a federal marriage law that he says he is opposed to on principle. What possible explanation do you have for this other than Paul’s own opposition to gay marriage, which is evidently so strong it overrides his other views?
This should read: Paul says the federal government should not be involved with marriage so he tried to pass a law keeping federal courts out of marriage. Seems consistent to me.
He didn’t try to pass a law keeping federal courts out of marriage. He tried to pass a law keeping federal courts from ruling on a federal law about marriage. Please explain why.
I’m not sure.
I’m sure the fact that has been caught on film saying of an apparently gay man, “THAT MAN’S A QUEER!!!” shouldn’t be factored into the equation.
After all, if we were discussing a Congressman’s stance on Civil Rights no one would think it relevant if that same Congressman was filmed referring to “niggers” as being terribly relevant.
Maybe that was Lew Rockwell wearing a Ron Paul mask.
Okay, so other than the fact that the man’s a Conspiracy Theorist, a homophobe, an anti-vax apologist if not full on nutter, that he’s bigoted against “non-American” lookin’ folks, has condoned bigotry, used Holocaust Denier mailing lists to reach potential constituents, claims that he was such an incompetent manager that he was unaware of the content going out under his own name in his own newsletter and that he’s violated his own principles in order to support certain legislation, y’all have to admit that he’s really not got any negatives at all.
You’ve got nuthin.
Ron in 2012!
He leaves a trail of rooted people
Mesmerized by just the sight,
The few he’s touched now are disciples
Love as one - he is the Light!
Umm, did he specify black? I don’t think so.
Context is key as well, and he is pointing out an irony in that a lot of people want foreigners to be more likely to be checked out intensely at airports (not Paul), but the people who do the checking are more likely to be 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. So it’s not my fault you can’t understand the point.
I asked for different links to thinks you said without backing up. That was clear. It’s not my fault you haven’t provided them.