My Email
RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations
Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
To: "
[email protected]" <
[email protected]>
RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations
http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Ven...-the-curtain--Why-we-MUST-question-our-Heroes
Robin Westmiller states,
"specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy."
Reality Check
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm
Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, “Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.” And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007
Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.
Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987
Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage,"
whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]
