"Ron Paul Doesn't Think the Federal Government Belongs In Your Bedroom"

Actually he believes that fetuses should be considered human beings by the federal government, he does not believe it should stay out of your bedroom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of…

Well said Goldy- this is bad for Democrats. We go from having a chance in 7 out of 9 districts to 6 out of 10. Hopefully there will be an uproar among the base which will force our inept negotiators back to the table...

Yes, though, otherwise he most certainly believes that homosexuality, women being allowed out unescorted, black people traveling through Sundown Towns, all should be allowed to be criminalized by virtue of States Rights.

Let's fucking face it, if you give money, campaign for, vote for, or are elected as a Republican, you are against advancing gay rights. Period. The end. No Republican, as they exist now, would ever advance gay rights on a federal level.

Comparing him to Santorum?

That's a low-set bar.

@2 Did you mean this comment for a different post?

Does the constitution condone any sexual activities? What a spurious argument. It's infuriating really. And didn't we decide that the right to privacy is a basic human right? Hence the 9th amendment? Fuck.

"[T]here clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution." What about the right to pursuit of happiness, ie "life, liberty and"? If my pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on yours, we should be good, eh?

Both Santorum and Paul are dangerous lunatics.

@8 Sorry to have to go pedant on ya, but the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" passage is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Though I do definitely wish it was in both.

The sort of people Ron Paul wants running his State's Rights "utopias"-

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/1…

"Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law."

He would enable this fucker's opinions to become State law.

@7: "And didn't we decide that the right to privacy is a basic human right? Hence the 9th amendment? Fuck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leg…

He wishes to bar the Federal courts from ever hearing anything related a State's infringing upon the right to privacy.

Paul is being given the bum's rush by Romnoids.

Wouldn't worry about him or The Gingrinch too much longer.

The fantasy driving most Ron Paul enthusiasts seems to be the fantasy of Just Being Left Alone To Live Your Own Life. They have been led to believe that neutering the federal government will lead to a blissful state of independence. In this example as in many others, what it actually means is they will be even more at the mercy of unfair and capricious rulers than they were before. Live in Alabama? Too bad!

This makes me feel sorry for Libertarians.

Quickly: I think he is correct from a legal standpoint. He is actually correct on a lot of legal issues. Before the flames: I think Mr. Paul is batshit crazy because he is an MD and he does not believe in the absolute foundation of our understanding of biology. I believe one can NOT believe in evolution and go through life fine as a jurist, English professor etc... However an MD who does not "accept the theory of evolution" is batshit crazy.
On a side note: I have an JD from a Napoleonic code country and think government interference in peoples private lives is an awful thing. But Mr. Paul is FAR more knowledgeable about legal topics than some history professors are. (Or than some progressives who I happen to agree with...)

Yes, except Santorum doesn't have a chance in hell to become the GOP candidate.

However many problems I personally have with libertarians and their views, I don't think that Mr Paul is being necessarily anti-gay in the views portrayed here. He is arguing for states' rights, which I can understand on a theoretical level (from a libertarian perspective) as better than central government: since libertarians are the most propense to dislike big centralized government, allowing the states to decide as much as possible makes sense, since this decreases the level of centralization and increases the level of local self-government. Of course, a state is still pretty big, and from a liberatiran perspective it would be even better if such things were decided at the county rather than at the state level. But pushing for this may simply not be feasible, so maybe Mr Paul is thinking of giving more decision power to the states as an indeed-imperfect-but-better-than-big-central-government position to support.

I note also leaving it up to the states to decide doesn't guarantee anti-gay results will everywhere be adopted. There are certainly states in which pro-equality laws would immediately be adopted.

Of course, the big question is whether or not consensual sexual behavior in any way should be limited by laws, federal or otherwise. Libertarians tend to be social progressives; the ones I know are in favor of no laws against consensual sex. The comments above imply that Mr Paul does think consensual sexual behavior should be regulated; by the quotes I saw here don't make this clear. Maybe Mr Paul is again simply going for what he thinks has more chance of winning widespread approaval (states' rights), thinking that his proposals, albeit still too imperfect (even state government is too much government), are still better than letting big central government make this decision.

Federalism has become such an ingrained part of the liberal perspective that it's like the joke about the old fish asking the young fish how the water is, and the young fish asks, "what's water?"

States' rights just means that the states can enact all sorts of laws. That was the way the founders envisioned it, anyway. The Constitution was a way to keep the Federal government out of everyone's hair. The basic idea is that people in communities can make the best decisions about their own welfare. (This is something most people agree with as common sense, and it's one of the foundation stones of libertarianism, but when you mention the word "libertarian" most liberals' brains go all berzerkistan and start rejecting even common sense ideas.)

That means that if one community of people wants to outlaw sodomy, they can. If another one wants to outlaw marriage altogether and enact polyamorous hippie love commune rules, they're free to do that. If another community wants to legalize marijuana, be my guest.

The only rules are that if you can't force anyone to join or stay in a community, and you can't lie to them.

That means that if you're gay in an anti-gay community, you're free to leave and join a pro-gay or meh-gay community. Letting people voluntarily join whatever communities they want is the best way to ensure things get done successfully.

And to complaints about the unfairness of "having to move": that's already the situation. There are already gay-friendly cities that gays move to from all over the country -- willingly, gladly.

I am gay and run a gay blog and support both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and have donated around $2,000 this cycle to Paul related activities. I don't think Kelly Clarkson and Vince Vaughn and Bruce Fein and all the other people who support Ron Paul have problems with gay people.

Ah, the Berzerkistanis have arrived, I see.

No right to privacy? It's implicit in the bleeding Fourth Amendment! If we don't have a right to privacy, there is no such thing as an unreasonable search!

@20: We tried a system where everything was left to the states. It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work. A strong Federal government is necessary for a country as large as ours to have a sense of national identity.

@22: "I don't think Kelly Clarkson and Vince Vaughn and Bruce Fein and all the other people who support Ron Paul have problems with gay people."

No, but they haven't got a clue what Ron Paul's about.

@20: "States' rights just means that the states can enact all sorts of laws. "

All sorts of horrible, racist, misogynist, laws. Which you and Ron Paul are just fine with as conservatives.

@19: "I note also leaving it up to the states to decide doesn't guarantee anti-gay results will everywhere be adopted. There are certainly states in which pro-equality laws would immediately be adopted."

I thought you were smarter than this :(

@25: "and it didn't work"

You're talking to a Paultard, who believes in the power of the magical Truly Free Market.

@26 "All sorts of horrible, racist, misogynist, laws." How does that not apply to any political entity?

"Which you and Ron Paul are just fine with as conservatives."

I know that in Berzerkistan political labels are used as insults but over here in reality they aren't. I'm not a conservative, but I don't think being called one is an insult. Just like I'm not gay, but I don't see anything wrong with being gay, so I don't take being called gay as an insult.

@21, maybe I'm naive, but indeed I don't think that the central government is always better than local government. I understand there's a lot of disagreement (especially in America) about that, and I'll be glad to hear your arguments. But just accusing me of stupidity isn't really, ahn, an argument for anything.

@25, there were a few more things wrong with the Articles of the Confederation that merely states' rights (and frankly, they wouldn't have let Texas secede if it wanted to, so I'm not sure how sincere they were about states' rights anyway; a lot of it was empty rhetoric to conceal the fact that the Southern States wanted to conserve slavery). So indeed, maybe states' rights is a good idea, even though the CSA clearly wasn't.

@28: "How does that not apply to any political entity?"

It doesn't apply to the protections we have in place, the protections you wish to strip away, which is why I find you repugnant.

"I'm not a conservative"

Your hissing at the word "liberals" gave you away, bud.

@26, I am quite smart, thank you. It's a pity you feel you need to attack my intelligence rather than argue with me. I'm sure your anger comes from bad experiences with Ron Paul defenders; but I am not one of them. I am quite far from being a libertarian, though I do share some beliefs with them.

But the claitm that the only use that local government would have is to promote the approval of unjust laws (and that there are no ways to avoid that) does not compute. It's like saying that the only use of representative democracy is to allow demagogy to happen.

The debate between the pros and cons (and mehs) of central vs. local government is an interesting and non-obvious one. I would love to hear your arguments. But please don't make assumptions about me.

@30, maybe I'm missing something, but in what post did luke1249 "hiss at liberals"? And the protections you mention are not there because the government is central -- they could be in place if it weren't, and there could be central governments without these protections (most central governments in history would have laughed at anyone who said these protections should exist).

So luke's question remains unanswered. To rephrase, why should "horrible, misogynistic, racist laws" only come from local governments, not from central governments? History doesn't seem lend support to your claim.

@32: "To rephrase, why should "horrible, misogynistic, racist laws" only come from local governments, not from central governments? History doesn't seem lend support to your claim."

Actions of central government exist to address abuses of state law. Ron Paul believes that segregation should be legal, and admirable to champion under property rights.

History does not show that a removal of all civil rights legislation is required, as Paul and Luke endorse. I was not dismissing your "argument" by being disappointed, I was simply pointing out that I was disappointed that you have such little understanding of why Federal protections exist.

Maybe I can reccommend to all sides a little more calm? If we don't throw around words like "liberal" or "conservative" as if they were insults (they aren't), or also actual insults like "Berzerkistanis", maybe the discussion coudl become more interesting. Personally, I'd love to hear you all's ideas and arguments about central vs. local government.

Luke1249@20 made a good defense of local government. Here is a problem I see with it: luke, I believe you'd have to agree that not everything should be decided by the states or local governments. There should be certain things -- call them 'human rights', or whatever else you'd want -- that should be respected everywhree (so that a certain local government does not outlaw, say, witchcraft and restores the practice of burning witches at the stake). It seems to me the real differences of opinion are about what things should be everywhere obligatory -- which rights are so 'inalienable' to humans that they could nowhere be withdrawn, even if the local consensus is that they should? Aren't the items on this list (rather than the existence of the list itself) the real point of contention?

@33, this assumes that the central government will always play the good guy role, which is not at all a given -- in fact, it would seem your founding fathers were so keen on limiting the powers of the central government precisely because their European experience taught them that the central government will often fail to do that.

That the central government should be (limited to?) addressing abuses of state law I think we all -- you, Luke, Ron Paul, me -- agree on. And I will go on to agree with you (but apparently not with Ron Paul) that it is not at all a good idea to remove civil rights legislation (see my post above to luke). This, however, does not answer the question: what makes central government any better at doing this than local government? Why is it more likely that a local government would do bad things -- revokes Roe vs. Wade, reinstitutes DADT, restores segregation in schools, etc. -- than a central government?

"There should be certain things -- call them 'human rights', or whatever else you'd want -- that should be respected everywhree (so that a certain local government does not outlaw, say, witchcraft and restores the practice of burning witches at the stake)."

How do you enforce these without a central government? Ron Paul states that you do not, unless it's something he particularly agrees with, like a federal ban on abortion, preventing the federal courts from hearing issues of privacy, and declaring a fetus a human being.

"That the central government should be (limited to?) addressing abuses of state law I think we all -- you, Luke, Ron Paul, me -- agree on."
.
And no, this is the very opposite of what Ron Paul believes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Po…

@20,

That's a very adorable, but still wrong interpretation of the Constitution and history. Yes, the Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states, which is why most states shortly after the founding of the country adopted their own bills of rights. But the 14th Amendment explicitly applies federal protections to local and state governments. You can squawk all you want about how unfair it is that states can't execute gays if they so choose, but the fact remains that everyone in this country, regardless of where they live, gets equal protection.

The 10th Amendment allows states to grant *extra* rights and protections to the people, but it would behoove you and Ron Paul to actually read the Constitution, even the parts you don't like, even the parts that were amended.

Reminder-

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/r…

"Rep. Ron Paul kicked off his third run for president on Friday, but not without inciting controversy. Shortly after calling for abolishing FEMA on CNN, the latest Republican presidential candidate told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.

Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”

Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act are nothing new. He was the only congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the law’s passage in 2004, Think Progress reports. In his speech to Congress explaining his opposition, he said, “The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”

And the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Last year, his son Rand Paul took heat for stating his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act during his run for Kentucky’s state senate. Rand backtracked on his comments and eventually issued an apology, and was later elected a state senator."

Ron Paul believes in the right of the fetus, but no Human Rights as you have put forth.

@36, yes, indeed, some sort of central government is necessary, the question being how much, i.e., how many restrictions it should be able to impose on local government. I think even Mr Paul would agree with that -- he's a libertarian, not an anarchist.

It is an interesting question whether or not anti-discrimination laws work better than changes in social attitude to change a situation that is oppressive to some group. Does anyone know what exactly would have happened if the Civil Rights movement had not been about getting anti-discrimination laws approved, but about changing the mentality of the people of the South? Are new laws the best method for social engineering?

The point being, I don't think libertarians are in favor of discrimination per se, they may simply think that central government laws and regulations forbidding discrimination are not the best way to achieve this result. (Which is not to say that Mr Paul doesn't think like that -- I don't know much about his personal ideas on the topic, and the links you provided do suggest that he is, in that respect, somewhat conservative rather than libertarian.)

@40 "...I don't think libertarians are in favor of discrimination per se,..."

They just favor policies which would allow discrimination. They're not in favor of creating a neo-feudal state, they just favor policies which would allow that.

@40: "It is an interesting question whether or not anti-discrimination laws work better than changes in social attitude to change a situation that is oppressive to some group. Does anyone know what exactly would have happened if the Civil Rights movement had not been about getting anti-discrimination laws approved, but about changing the mentality of the people of the South? Are new laws the best method for social engineering?"

Your mistake is to assume that society is moving in any direction. The new laws ARE in fact the best method of protecting us, absolutely better than having no laws.

"The point being, I don't think libertarians are in favor of discrimination per se,"

It is irrelevant whether they personally believe that blacks should be hanged, they wish to passively allow blacks to be hanged.

More reminders that Ron Paul is not what you are putting him out to be-

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165350/thr…

"He supports individual freedom. True, as his fans always say, Paul supports protecting civil liberties from the federal government and opposes the Patriot Act. But it seems never to have occurred to those writers that half the country consists of women who might want to exercise the freedom to control their own reproductive organs. Paul opposes abortion rights and he talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. Paul says he wants Roe v. Wade repealed so the issue can be decided by the states. But Paul voted for the federal ban on “partial birth” abortions.

In general, Paul’s commitment is only to limiting federal power, not proactively protecting individual rights. Passing federal legislation to protect civil rights from states or private enterprises, and rigorous enforcement of those laws, is not on Paul’s agenda. Indeed, he opposes doing so. Paul says the Americans with Disabilities Act “should never have been passed,” because “it’s an intrusion into private property rights.” He even says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If Congress passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ban discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, Paul would presumably veto it. As Adele Stan writes in Alternet, Paul’s newsletters—which have garnered attention for their racist passages—also included homophobic conspiracy theorizing.

He is liberal on foreign policy. Just because Ron Paul opposes imperialism and unnecessary invasions of foreign countries doesn’t mean he has a liberal or progressive bone in his body. Paul is a nationalist and isolationist, staunchly opposed to multilateral organizations. This isn’t good for international peacekeeping or other humanitarian efforts, nor arms control. Paul opposes all foreign aid. Promoting democracy and human rights are of no interest to Paul, even through peaceful means. He also opposes immigration and wants to eliminate America’s constitutional policy of birthright citizenship.

As Michael Cohen explains in Foreign Policy, Paul’s foreign policy would undermine many progressive aims. “There is far more to Paul’s view than just his opposition to U.S. military adventurism,” writes Cohen. “Paul also believes that the United States should depart from all international organizations and global alliances. This includes not just NATO, but also the United Nations and the World Health Organization.” Indeed, in 1990 Paul appeared in a crazed video of the John Birch Society claiming the UN would take away Americans’ gun rights, property rights and their right to practice religion freely.

In short, you don’t even need to think about Paul’s bizarre right-wing economic views to find him unacceptable."

ankylosaur, I consider myself a civil libertarian. I am not a huge Obama fan. Because I am concerned about Human Rights, I will never vote for Ron Paul or anyone like him. There are probably plenty of things that luke, I, and Ron Paul "agree" on, but they come from rotten principles, and they would allow these to be used to loathsome ends under the guise of "freedoms".

The freedom to be a white conservative male is not the utmost freedom I wish to protect.

And seriously, if you think that every State indulges in the abuse of human rights, in the past and up to this very date, you're not very well-aware of what goes on around you in this country. The US is not great because of what it says it is, it should be great because of what it does, and most importantly DOES NOT do to its citizens, its women, its minorities, and its poor.

Er, does not indulge.

Ron Paul, 1995-

"[Ron Paul]I also do an Investment Letter, it’s called: the Ron Paul Survival Report and I put that out on a monthly basis.

[Reporter]
I’ve heard of that.

[Ron Paul]Which is a Gold oriented newsletter, its also ah being – expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government where there is a lot of taxes and there is a lot of regulations and attacks on our personal liberties, I was concerned about this many years ago, even 1974 I had a lot of concern about this and advocated some of the things that they are talking about right now."

This is the content those STILL involved with his campaign wrote and published under his name, with his full approval.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-pau…

"In the October 1992 edition Paul (or someone writing as Paul) notes of the trend of “hip-hop…urban youth who play unsuspecting Whites like pianos” (which seems to mean car-jacking. In that passage he suggest buying an unregistered gun, keeping in the car and then, if used, fleeing the scene and wiping down and disposing of the weapon. In short, this passage preys on fears of blacks (even in small towns like Lake Jackson, TX) and suggests that the only solution is a felony action. Keep in mind, too, the newsletters frequently spoke of a coming race war (for example—also here).
The same addition (indeed, the same page) equates equal rights for homosexuals as “letting gays force their way onto other’ people’s property.”

In April 1993, the newsletter suggested that Israeli intelligence might have been behind the 1993 WTC attack: "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

December 1990: MLK was a bisexual pedophile: “King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys” who also, according to the January 1991 edition, beat his partners: "St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours (‘non-violence’ didn’t apply in all spheres, I guess)."

January 1994: homosexuals like getting AIDS: "They enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you’ve got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."
Also, in the same passage, we see that gay men really only live for sex and therefore “these men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one’s older years the happiest.”

The “October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.” (via TNR).

Also via TNR: “The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

These are the people you are encouraging to be a part of Ron Paul's federal government, and the sorts of people he would encourage to draft State law.

Your claims that these people do not exist anymore is absolute horseshit.

Mississippi (unofficially) ratified the 13th Amendment in 1995. 1995. So let's not kid ourselves that the institutionalized racist overtones implicit in the States Rights Uber Alles arguments are ancient history.

Beyond that, in a world where most economic power is in the hands of multinational corporations, sensible observers should be asking themselves why a self-proclaimed friend of business and "the market" like Mr. Paul would be so interested in allowing those multinational organizations to act without any regulatory oversight on the national or international fronts, while simultaneously advocating that all regulation occur at the most local level possible. It seems to be transparently setting up a situation where no governmental entities have any authority to meaningfully regulate the actions of big business whatsoever. Local regulation pitted against international power and influence.

Good luck sending your county prosecutor up against Exxon or Monsanto's legal department.

@47: Anyone who says the equivalent of "surely people will be nice to each other if we remove the legal barricades for oppression" while ignoring that their candidate of choice associates with the white supremacist movement, being booked on their media, etc. needs several slaps to the face. It goes beyond naivete into something pathological. Madness, willful deception, disassociation, personality disorder, I have no clue.

"Essentially, Paul has no interest in leaving anybody alone."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Paul's position on this issue is consistent with his position on nearly everything - that there are very few "one size fits all" laws that should be imposed on the states by the federal government. The issue in question, sodomy, is immaterial to this argument. Paul has the same argument about drug legalization (and based on the advertisements on this page, I imagine that's a popular topic) - that it should be up to the states to decide and should not be imposed by the federal government. And certainly that the bankrupting, fascistic, international "drug war" be brought to an end. These are all Paul's positions.

Like Dan says, Paul is a "leave me the fuck alone" Libertarian. It doesn't madder what his opinions are - he will "defend til the death" your right to have yours, and that's what counts. It's a huge country, and not everybody is going to agree on everything - and certainly not all the time. Paul's positions allow for that conflict, and the American system allows for fervent debate and cultural expression to attempt to persuade others of one's position. Acceptance of gay culture by the mainstream has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past decades. That is the system working.

But there are also at least 100 million evangelicals in the country (who pay their taxes too), many of whom have seriously anti-gay positions. It's the gay movement's job to convince them, as they have begun to do in recent years. Paul would neither have the Christian Right determine how you should live, nor you determine how they should live in a top down manner. This leaves states, the laboratories of democracy, to hash the issues out for themselves, so that the larger nation can see examples of what works in different local contexts. It's actually an amazing system, and Paul supports it better than anyone.

It is not easy managing a country of 300 million people, each with different and constantly shifting varieties of sexuality, religion, aesthetic, and cultural beliefs. Paul's classical Libertarian approach is to say that there is plenty of room here for all of them, provided we don't try and force everyone to conform to one standard. That is why state and local authorities are so important, because local people can agree on local values without necessarily exporting them elsewhere.

There really are people who like living in closed-minded Christian societies. There are also Amish, Hasids, Quakers who like their own local rules and customs that they vote on locally. These peoples are no longer persecuted as they once were, because their way of life works for them and it doesn't bother anyone else.

This is the job of a liberal democracy, to defend smaller interests against being flattened by conformist, federal mandates. This is why Santorum's position is so odious - because he would use the federal policing powers to make sure everyone conforms to his localized version of reality. Dan is right that there is a *world* of difference between him and Paul. Paul's position on the Texas case, seemingly paradoxically, is the healthiest position for the furtherment of gay rights and freedoms in this country, because it allows everybody to be who they are without the use of coercive force to try to change them.

"Essentially, Paul has no interest in leaving anybody alone."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Paul's position on this issue is consistent with his position on nearly everything - that there are very few "one size fits all" laws that should be imposed on the states by the federal government. The issue in question, sodomy, is immaterial to this argument. Paul has the same argument about drug legalization (and based on the advertisements on this page, I imagine that's a popular topic) - that it should be up to the states to decide and should not be imposed by the federal government. And certainly that the bankrupting, fascistic, international "drug war" be brought to an end. These are all Paul's positions.

Like Dan says, Paul is a "leave me the fuck alone" Libertarian. It doesn't madder what his opinions are - he will "defend til the death" your right to have yours, and that's what counts. It's a huge country, and not everybody is going to agree on everything - and certainly not all the time. Paul's positions allow for that conflict, and the American system allows for fervent debate and cultural expression to attempt to persuade others of one's position. Acceptance of gay culture by the mainstream has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past decades. That is the system working.

But there are also at least 100 million evangelicals in the country (who pay their taxes too), many of whom have seriously anti-gay positions. It's the gay movement's job to convince them, as they have begun to do in recent years. Paul would neither have the Christian Right determine how you should live, nor you determine how they should live in a top down manner. This leaves states, the laboratories of democracy, to hash the issues out for themselves, so that the larger nation can see examples of what works in different local contexts. It's actually an amazing system, and Paul supports it better than anyone.

It is not easy managing a country of 300 million people, each with different and constantly shifting varieties of sexuality, religion, aesthetic, and cultural beliefs. Paul's classical Libertarian approach is to say that there is plenty of room here for all of them, provided we don't try and force everyone to conform to one standard. That is why state and local authorities are so important, because local people can agree on local values without necessarily exporting them elsewhere.

There really are people who like living in closed-minded Christian societies. There are also Amish, Hasids, Quakers who like their own local rules and customs that they vote on locally. These peoples are no longer persecuted as they once were, because their way of life works for them and it doesn't bother anyone else.

This is the job of a liberal democracy, to defend smaller interests against being flattened by conformist, federal mandates. And it's why Santorum's position is so odious - because he would use the federal policing powers to make sure everyone conforms to his localized version of reality. Dan is right that there is a *world* of difference between Santorum and Paul. Paul's position on the Texas case, seemingly paradoxically, is the healthiest position for the furtherment of gay rights and freedoms in this country, because it allows everybody to be who they are without the use of coercive force to try to change them.

@49: "Like Dan says, Paul is a "leave me the fuck alone" Libertarian. It doesn't madder what his opinions are - he will "defend til the death" your right to have yours, and that's what counts."

Unless you're a woman, or a gay, or a minority, or disabled. Privilege is awesome!

Or a person that works for any company, someone who requires medicine, food, clean water, a non-Superfund site to live on, a person who may catch disease, a person who wants doctors to not promote snake oil and Scientology becoming incorporated EVEN FURTHER into state and Federal Government (Ron Paul, as a proper fundamentalist Christian, does not believe in the absolute separation of church and state.)

From what I understand, undead ayn rand, your problem is more with Mr Paul personally than with the idea of states' rights vs. central government. And for all I know maybe you're right -- I don't know Mr Paul's opinions in detail, and he may be as misogynistic, racist, conservative-privileged in his beliefs and in his political action as you say he is. I'd have to examine his words more closely to come to an opinion.

But regardless of Mr Paul's personal activity (which is one topic), there's the larger topic of how and what to regulate. Wasn't the very point of the constitution to limit central power, so that the states would be able to do as much as possible independently (which would lead to, as dq76@49 above describes, each state as an independent experiment, showing the union what the consequences would be of following policy X, Y or Z)?

Of course people's rights should be protected. Of course minority rights should also be protected. I don't think there's anyone who disagrees with that (except perhaps the few actual anarchists). Isn't the whole issue after all exactly how many things should be in the list of rights to be universally protected and regulated -- i.e., the list of things we do not want to do state-by-state experiments with?

In a country like the US, where there is so much division concerning social issues, non-consensus regulatory measures (and which currently debated issues are even close to consensus?) will leave close to 1/2 of the population unhappy and dissatisfied with the central government -- no matter what the decision is. This is bound to backfire eventually.

You may think laws are the essential thing, but I see them at best as a first half-baked attempt at social restructuring. If the attempt fails, society eventually wins and the laws are dropped (see the Prohibition). So what really has to happen is indeed the change of hearts and minds of a substantial majority of the population. Which is why I feel much happier when I see that more and more people -- especially among the younger generations -- are pro-gay-marriage (and in fact don't even see the point of opposing it: where is the harm?) than when I hear about new pro-gay-marriage laws. The latter are good, sure, but the former are much better, and hopefully one of the functions (perhaps the most important function) of the latter is to lead to the former.

ankylosaur, do you believe only white males deserve to have their "rights" protected? Because that's the gist of the States' Rights proponents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_st…

I'm focusing on Ron Paul because he's the topic of conversation. I'm focusing negatively on him and his associations in the white supremacist movement not as an Ad Hom, but because you appear to be pushing the bullshit notion that we're better off with their "right" to trample over minority rights, because our "imperfect" solution makes white supermacists and other bigoted Republicans unhappy. Instead of offering reform, you suggest we drop all protection of minority rights. This is why I'm still astounded by your replies, they're either naive or half-formed.

Dan,
Isn't all homophobia toxic to LGBT teenagers? Deciding on the degree of toxicity seems of the definition of splitting hairs on a bunch of Republican assholes.

The smaller the jurisdiction, the easier it is for big business to buy off its government and control it, and the more little jurisdictions there are, the easier it is for big business to play them off against each other in a race to the bottom. That is the big picture motivating the really big money behind libertarianism and states' rights -- an endgame that the ideologically mesmerized libertarian base seems incapable of seeing.

As for Ron Paul, he's a monomaniacal loon who associates with dangerous, paranoid loons:

Ron Paul in 1998 John Birch Society Documentary on the UN Plot to take over America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X554O6Twi…

That being said, he's a fitting representative for Texas, which fought for independence from Mexico largely so big Anglo landowners could legalize and expand slavery. Which brings us neatly back to my first point...

@58: Yes! That.

I know there are liberals out there who have been pulled into the Paul camp by his stance on decriminalizing drugs -- see comments @49/@50 for an example of a Paulite trying to win liberals over by throwing them this bone -- but don't be fooled. Not only would the benefits thus obtained be far outweighed by the damage done by the rest of Paul's policy (picture a U.S. with no meaningful regulatory oversight over air or water quality, for example) , but it is also the portion of Paul's platform that is least likely to go anywhere. Ditto his stance on national defense -- a Republican president is in no position to cut defense spending or to back away from our historical hegemonic role. The only ideas of Ron Paul's likely to gain any traction were he actually elected president are those that already align with mainstream Republicanism: Tax breaks for the wealthy, massive cuts to social spending programs, and gutting the federal government's authority to regulate big business. In short, Bush policies. The rest is all pipe dreams.

@59: "damage done by the rest of Paul's policy"

Let alone by letting "big Pharm" self-regulate, and removing all barriers for selling products that don't work or having horrible side-effects, because consumers trust the Truly Free Market.

Paultards have no ability to think about the large scale effects of their actions, they just regurgitate "freedom", "responsibility", "liberty" and other words that don't match the reality of what they're suggesting.

@60: Well, I guess in Ron Paul's world if a company sells you lunchmeat with mercury in it, and your children die from mercury poisoning, you can sue the company for damages*, thus providing "market pressure" ** to not sell poisoned lunchmeat.***

*Providing that you can find a court that has jurisdiction in the matter. (Or "madder," as @49 would have it.)
**And that you win your case.
***And that the cost of the damages paid by the offending company exceeds their savings from eliminating quality control.

It seems to me that some of Ron Paul's supporters support what they'd like him to stand for, and regard what he actually says and does as a sort of distraction.

So typical, is the libertarian cherry-picking of constitutional permissions. When government does something they like -barging into gay bedrooms and arresting the residents - they say there is no authority in the Federal Constitution to STOP the government from taking action.

But when government does something they do not like - such as creating laws supporting education programs - they complain that there is nothing in the Federal Constitution to PERMIT the government to take action.

So the libertarians see a Constitutional green light for things they like, but a Constitutional red light for things they don't.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coi…

and it's WAY more fun now with the NDAA, Patriot Act, SOPA, ACTA, etc. Have fun with your racist dictator, you're all homophobes and racists for supporting undeclared wars that kill innocent people overseas. And so what if your brown neighbor gets arrested if he happens to look like a terrorist, right? And no mention of how the federal government treats Native Americans, some of the poorest people in our nation, perhaps because they're not pushing the chic gay agenda that helps 'liberals' feel enlightened? Hypocrites.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coi…

and it's WAY more fun now with the NDAA, Patriot Act, SOPA, ACTA, bailouts, etc. Have fun with your racist, Goldman Sachs-loving dictator, you're all homophobes and racists for supporting undeclared wars that kill innocent people overseas. And so what if your brown neighbor gets arrested if he happens to look like a terrorist, right (after all, Uncle Sam knows best and is just protecting us after all)? And no mention of how the federal government treats Native Americans, some of the poorest people in our nation, perhaps because they're not pushing the chic gay agenda that helps 'liberals' feel so enlightened? So cute how you pick your fights and still reek of hypocrisy.