Civil Liberties: Should Ron Paul discuss gay rights?

[2012]

With Obama's recent and reluctant opinion on gay marriage, do you think Ron Paul should take a stand?
I respect the entire state's rights attitude of Obama, but why are the LGBT groups praising Obama for his new state's rights stance when Ron Paul has said *THE SAME THING* for....as long as I can remember? Why is there no LGBT love for Ron Paul, since Obama is getting praise for just pretending to take this new state's rights stance in the past few days?

 

[Weston White]

Personally, I don’t think so. As that is purely a private choice and personal issue, and moreover is for states to address on their own. Additionally, is this not on par with advocating sodomy, which is largely illegal throughout the states (though presumably never enforced)?

This entire thing is a purely a paid for VNR political stunt (Video News Release).

So what is going to be next on their agenda? Lobbying for: a “Affirmative Sex Partner Act” to ensure that everybody gets to enjoy some “loving” on a regular basis; a “Total Bran Diet Act” to ensure that everybody remains regular; the “Bestiality Advocate Act” (or the “Baaw” Act), to ensure that humans and animals evolve as natural partners in order to meet the requirements of forthcoming internationalism?

 

[Inny Binny]

Additionally, is this not on par with advocating sodomy, which is largely illegal throughout the states (though presumably never enforced)?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[odamn]

no

 

[Sola_Fide]

No such thing as gay rights.

 

[Liberty74]

Yes, Ron should address it if asked. He does not need to go out of his way though.

Ron believes that two people have the "right" to marry. It does not matter if they are straight or gay. Why? Because it's none of the government freaking business. If two adults want to enter into a "voluntary" contract, which is what marriage basically is, so be it. It's not your neighbor's business and it's not some politician's business what YOU do. Unlike Obama and Romney, Ron and many of us in here think three dimensional and it's hard for many sheep to grasp the concept of freedom/liberty because they have been forced into the false right left paradigm (Rep v. Dem).

Excellent article on why people have a right to marry. I know some want to throw this issue back at the state level but the U.S. Constitution overrides any state Constitution or law IMO.

There are an infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual has an inherent right as a human being to one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s same right.

Also, there is this...

Regarding the right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically, the Ninth Amendment does state that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now I know we don't live in a perfect world and there are exceptions but we better start believing or acting like it or the tyrannical madness from both Reps and Dems won't stop.


***The Right To Marry***

 

[KMX]

No, we need to talk about the more importatnt things. Like over seas spending and jobs!!! Who cares about peoples personal business. Leave them alone!

 

[Vessol]

No. It's a hot issue right now that will fade in a few weeks. He needs to focus on what he's always talked about.

Marriage should have nothing to do with the State. If he gets involved, he'll just be lambasted by both sides. Democrats will slam him because he is personally against it. And Republicans will slam him because he is not for legislating against it.

It's a lose-lose situation. Most Americans are so fucking dumb that they can't even think about anything outside of the State, stateless marriages would be such a foreign concept to the brainwashed dolts.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Cowlesy]

No. It is not in his wheelhouse, and won't make a dime's worth of difference if we don't fix the deficit/debt crises.

 

[thoughtomator]

What's with the sudden influx of people who prioritize sodomy? People, the whole global economic system is coming down about our heads, and gay sex is on the list of things to talk about? Anyone infected with this problem needs to do a thorough internal re-examination of their priorities and sense of proportion.

 

[Republicanguy]

I remember when I saw that clip of of when that guy Sacha interviewed Ron some years ago in a spoof mockery, and he said "that guy's Queer to the blazes, he took his cloths off, let's get going. He's queer as crazy he put a hit on me, he took his cloths off".

I found the clip amusing, because his reaction is like WTF thid guy dancing and just his expression when he looks at him doing so before Bruno drops his trousers!

I understand Ron was upset, but the reaction of what he said was a little over the top. He had his right to feel pissed off, just could of expressed it a little differently.

The interview via youtube, the only copy available, I remember a few years back there was another one. http://youtu.be/osHm-Mirz40

 

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

RP supports traditional marriage personally but wants the decision left up to the states. He doesn't need to discuss it a great deal because it isn't the most important thing and it may alienate voters who like him for other reasons.

 

[Republicanguy]

RP supports traditional marriage personally but wants the decision left up to the states. He doesn't need to discuss it a great deal because it isn't the most important thing and it may alienate voters who like him for other reasons.

Well yes, it will happen. There are a lot of fanatics about this subject. I don't believe in Marriage as that is a religious ceremony and I don't do god or religion. I think it is fine if people want to live with one another and it is a meaningful relationship as a family unit or gay couple or whatever. At the end of the day there will always be discrimination.

 

[Brett85]

He's already spoken out against so called "gay marriage."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired. ...

There should be essentially no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage ...

If others who choose a different definition do not impose their standards on anyone else, they have a First Amendment right to their own definition and access to the courts to arbitrate any civil disputes. ...

It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose. With a bit more tolerance and a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem and emotionally charged debate could be easily avoided. ...

In economics, licensing is designed by the special interests to suppress competition. Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their standard. Both depend on the illegitimate use of government force.

He talked about marriage during a Des Moines Register editorial interview:



@44:30 mark, he reiterates the point from his book that I quoted. Ron's said a lot more than Obama has for marriage equality, yet Obama's praised for state's rights stance and Ron's a racist gay hater somehow.

And on Cavuto:

 

[awake]

He talks about human rights, which is a another way of explaining property rights. "Gay rights" is a political movement to seek special status and privilege from the state.

 

[Weston White]

What on earth are you talking about?

Didn’t your parents ever tell you about the birds and the bees, and even educated MD’s?

 

[ctiger2]

I didn't realize gay people have special rights.

 

[Inny Binny]

He talks about human rights, which is a another way of explaining property rights. "Gay rights" is a political movement to seek special status and privilege from the state.

I didn't realize gay people have special rights.

You mean trying to get access to special rights that straight people already have? Wow, what a tyranny! Clearly abolishing marriage entirely is the way to go, and I'm not going to get much excited by simply extending statist marriage to more people, but please don't pretend that the gay marriage thing is some nasty plot to get gays some extra special rights that ordinary people don't have.

Didn’t your parents ever tell you about the birds and the bees, and even educated MD’s?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. How is advocating for gay marriage equivalent to this illegal sodomy that is apparently outlawed everywhere?

As to what is more important...advocating for freedom comes with the recognition that all individuals live radically different lives from each other and that presuming one 'type' of freedom is objectively more important than the other is remarkably short-sighted. Some people might feel free by being released from the shackles of taxation, while others might feel most emancipated by smashing the sexual traditions of the state. I make no claim to be able to read the priorities of every single person in the world, and as such I shall equally and vigourously defend the rights of all to freely go about their lives in whichever way they choose.

If you really think this 'liberty revolution' can only afford to narrowly focus on the issue of debt and maybe a war or two, then it isn't much of a liberty revolution.