Why The Gay Community Should Support Ron Paul

[toxiclover]

http://fuckworker.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-gay-community-should-support-ron.html

The Gay community is defined as a group of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and transgender. They are united as a supportive subculture and an organization combined by civil right movements and culture. These communities commonly celebrate their right, freedom, diversity, pride and sexuality. The gay community supports certain political affiliations and there are even some heterosexual supporters. At present, one of the biggest issues that is being advocated by this community is the same sex marriage. Supporters of this kind of marriage cite various benefits that might be robbed from those people who cannot marry just because they belong to the similar sex, including health care, immigration, inheritance as well as property rights and protection and family obligation. Ron Paul's marriage belief deems that every individual, despite of preference, has a right to get married and enjoy the benefits that should be made available to individuals despite their status in relationship.

Why should the Gay Community support Ron Paul? This is the specific question that every gay individual should not take for granted. Maybe you are wondering on what is the position of Ron Paul regarding gay rights in every aspect of constitution.

Just so you know, Ron Paul is a critic of Supreme Court decision regarding the gay right in the case of Lawrence V. Texas case wherein sodomy laws were governed unconstitutional under the 14 Amendment. Ron Paul defined his opposition to unreasonable sodomy laws in this situation when he introduced the “We the People Act.” The Ron Paul marriage act, based on the right to marry disregarding sexual or sex orientation, will remove same sex unions and sexual practices from the Federal Jurisdiction. He clarified that it vanishes the gay right issues in Federal Government.

Ron Paul marriage issue interview stated that he supports the gay relation as well as same sex marriage. He also believes that relationship should not be imposed to anyone else. Ron Paul on marriage issue also stated that he wants to see the government without issues regarding marriage. Ron Paul marriage issue defined that this is not a state function, but a religious function. Ron Paul believes that the best scene is to grant divorce and enforce contracts but otherwise, there should be no comment on marriage issue. Ron Paul does not want to interfere with the freedom of two people in religious, social and sexual sense. When it comes to same sex marriage, Ron Paul supports all voluntary organizations and people can do it whatever they want.

Ron Paul take on marriage opposes the federal level in redefining the marriage as a union between one man and woman. Rather, he believes that legislating or recognizing marriages should be left to the local communities and states, and not to judicial activism. He voted for the Defense Marriage Act from refusing to recognize the same sex marriage which is performed in different states.

Ron Paul marriage issue believes that this is a function of religion and not of state, and it should be left on the decision of communities, specifically of the state. This is the reason why gay community should pledge their support to Ron Paul.

[HungLatinDom]

I am not American, so, maybe I did not understand well. Because what I am reading is that he will make sure that the govt from bigoted states will be free to make hell of gay people's lives, and the gay Americans should approve that.

[Deepanalnut]

A better candidate would be Gary Johnson who is

a) proven at an executive level (state of New Mexico)

a fiscal conservative

c) socially more liberal than Obama

d) will push to legalize gay marriage and rights at a federal level

e) legalize marijuana and get rid of jail for "personal" offenses on other drugs (but mandatory treatment instead).

He is running as the Libertarian candidate, is polling at about 10-12% right now and once he's on the podium and you have the Obamney clones looking like tools, he'll shine like a star.

[toxiclover]

I can't argue with that. I love Gary Johnson. The two party system is turning out to be two sides of the same coin. They all want endless wars and a police state.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Here's my problem with Ron Paul: he's not really a libertarian, he's a federalist. What's the difference? Libertarians would like to see the choices on issues like gay marriage (and abortion and other hotbutton social issues) returned to the individual and to private organizations. If you want say you're married to an eggplant, libertarians have no problem with that. Libertarians basically want to render the argument over government recognition of marriage moot by removing all government recognition of marriage, including repealing laws and regulations that provide tax benefits to married couples, social security, health insurance regulations, etc. So, yes, libertarians have a good position on same-sex marriage. They just arrive at it by having (IMO) a pretty bad position on a lot of other things.

But that's not what Ron Paul's all about. He's been involved with the libertarian movement off and on for decades, but really, he's a federalist. What the difference? Yes, he wants the federal government out of the marriage business. He wants the federal government out of a lot of businesses it's in.

But Ron Paul doesn't return that power to regulate to the private citizen, the way a libertarian would, he turns it back over to the individual states. This ends up tossing out a lot of federal law that's poised to become very favorable to us. For instance, Ron Paul would permit states to reenact sodomy laws if they wanted to. Right now, the federal government prevents people from being arrested for having sex with someone of the same gender. Ron Paul would hand us back to the tender loving mercies of states like Alabama or Texas.

So if you're looking at gay rights alone (and I don't suggest you do), you want a candidate who will best push that agenda at the federal level. Ron Paul is not that candidate.

[rawpozbtm]

Here's my problem with Ron Paul: he's not really a libertarian, he's a federalist. What's the difference? Libertarians would like to see the choices on issues like gay marriage (and abortion and other hotbutton social issues) returned to the individual and to private organizations. If you want say you're married to an eggplant, libertarians have no problem with that. Libertarians basically want to render the argument over government recognition of marriage moot by removing all government recognition of marriage, including repealing laws and regulations that provide tax benefits to married couples, social security, health insurance regulations, etc. So, yes, libertarians have a good position on same-sex marriage. They just arrive at it by having (IMO) a pretty bad position on a lot of other things.

But that's not what Ron Paul's all about. He's been involved with the libertarian movement off and on for decades, but really, he's a federalist. What the difference? Yes, he wants the federal government out of the marriage business. He wants the federal government out of a lot of businesses it's in.

But Ron Paul doesn't return that power to regulate to the private citizen, the way a libertarian would, he turns it back over to the individual states. This ends up tossing out a lot of federal law that's poised to become very favorable to us. For instance, Ron Paul would permit states to reenact sodomy laws if they wanted to. Right now, the federal government prevents people from being arrested for having sex with someone of the same gender. Ron Paul would hand us back to the tender loving mercies of states like Alabama or Texas.

So if you're looking at gay rights alone (and I don't suggest you do), you want a candidate who will best push that agenda at the federal level. Ron Paul is not that candidate.

Absolutely right!! I will vote for Obama, even though I don't like everything he has done.

[Deepanalnut]

Absolutely right!! I will vote for Obama, even though I don't like everything he has done.

Obama has broken a lot of promises though. Granted, 2010 moderated him to some degree kinda like the Republican landslide in 1994 moderated Clinton but Obama has broken a vast majority of his campaign promises. He's also buckled on a great number of initiatives where the GOP has pretended it was a brick wall. Obama has also significantly failed to address the running deficit and while I'm no fan of the Paul Ryan budget because of what it doesn't do, the fact is Obama has still failed there.

I think that either Buddy Roemer (AE likely candidate) or Gary Johnson (Lib candidate) are the likely best choices despite the fact that both of these men were very recently RINOs. The cess pool that is US politics won't change until we get legitimate 3rd parties into congress and force coalition-like Congresses much like the rest of the social democracies in Europe are (the United States is a social republic no matter how hard people cry about how evil "socialism" is) to get things done. The three "independents" are just ®'s and (D)'s that lost their seats to upstarts and not really independents.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Obama has broken a lot of promises though.

Again, looking at things solely through the lens of gay politics, it's really hard to say Obama hasn't pushed through pretty much everything he promised to. As far as I'm concerned, the repeal of DADT is huge (that one really affected me, however, since I got kicked out of the military under DADT. Actually went to the recruiters last year to see if they'd let me back in, and they would! But I'd have had to go through basic training again. At 40. Plus, they didn't know I had HIV, so I'd have failed the physical.)

It's true he hasn't done much on the marriage front, although one could argue about choosing not to defend DOMA in court. But on the other hand, he didn't promise to push for marriage rights either.

I like both Buddy Roemer (whose big issue is corruption and crony capitalism) and Gary Johnson (who's running basically with a fiscal conservative/social liberal vibe I find very attractive), but let's be realistic here. Neither of them are likely to crack 5% in the general election. They'd legitimately consider it a real accomplishment to get half that. Like it or not, the two party system here in the US is here to stay. You simply will not get third parties big enough to make a difference here or force coalition governments like you see in Western Europe for structural reasons. Although you could argue that our division of powers generally results in de facto coalition governments here in the US (since the Republican control the House right now and the Democrat have the White House and a bit of an upper hand in the Senate).

[rawpozbtm]

Again, looking at things solely through the lens of gay politics, it's really hard to say Obama hasn't pushed through pretty much everything he promised to. As far as I'm concerned, the repeal of DADT is huge (that one really affected me, however, since I got kicked out of the military under DADT. Actually went to the recruiters last year to see if they'd let me back in, and they would! But I'd have had to go through basic training again. At 40. Plus, they didn't know I had HIV, so I'd have failed the physical.)

It's true he hasn't done much on the marriage front, although one could argue about choosing not to defend DOMA in court. But on the other hand, he didn't promise to push for marriage rights either.

I like both Buddy Roemer (whose big issue is corruption and crony capitalism) and Gary Johnson (who's running basically with a fiscal conservative/social liberal vibe I find very attractive), but let's be realistic here. Neither of them are likely to crack 5% in the general election. They'd legitimately consider it a real accomplishment to get half that. Like it or not, the two party system here in the US is here to stay. You simply will not get third parties big enough to make a difference here or force coalition governments like you see in Western Europe for structural reasons. Although you could argue that our division of powers generally results in de facto coalition governments here in the US (since the Republican control the House right now and the Democrat have the White House and a bit of an upper hand in the Senate).

I think you are right about Obama here, but I think Obama isn't liberal enough. I would like to have another FDR or even a socialist in the White House.

[bobbie]

Rawpozbtm

Well, there are a lot of people who think Obama IS a socialist! LOL!!!

You probably wouldn't want FDR...but maybe his Lesbian wife Elenore!

[Deepanalnut]

Again, looking at things solely through the lens of gay politics, it's really hard to say Obama hasn't pushed through pretty much everything he promised to. As far as I'm concerned, the repeal of DADT is huge (that one really affected me, however, since I got kicked out of the military under DADT. Actually went to the recruiters last year to see if they'd let me back in, and they would! But I'd have had to go through basic training again. At 40. Plus, they didn't know I had HIV, so I'd have failed the physical.)

It's true he hasn't done much on the marriage front, although one could argue about choosing not to defend DOMA in court. But on the other hand, he didn't promise to push for marriage rights either.

I like both Buddy Roemer (whose big issue is corruption and crony capitalism) and Gary Johnson (who's running basically with a fiscal conservative/social liberal vibe I find very attractive), but let's be realistic here. Neither of them are likely to crack 5% in the general election. They'd legitimately consider it a real accomplishment to get half that. Like it or not, the two party system here in the US is here to stay. You simply will not get third parties big enough to make a difference here or force coalition governments like you see in Western Europe for structural reasons. Although you could argue that our division of powers generally results in de facto coalition governments here in the US (since the Republican control the House right now and the Democrat have the White House and a bit of an upper hand in the Senate).

Johnson is going to win New Mexico. He has a strong shot at winning Colorado and Arizona as well. Granted that trio cannot win the Presidency however he is polling in the 10-12% range right now and if he gets in on the Presidential debates (NBC, CNN and Fox requirements are polling at 10% to be included) then I would counter that with him getting a substantial part of the vote. Moreso if the fight comes down to Obama and Romney since they are 2 sides of the same coin. He is very different than those 2 on a number of issues.

that being said, I'm glad Obama has done some work for gay rights but in the sum of the parts across all of his platforms, he lied and leaves a trail of broken promises behind him. From transparency in government to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and how un-transparent that process was and how full of special interests it was to continued crony leadership in government and his starkly partisan positions and finally his caving every time the Republicans flap their arms...he's just not a great leader.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Johnson is going to win New Mexico. He has a strong shot at winning Colorado and Arizona as well. Granted that trio cannot win the Presidency however he is polling in the 10-12% range right now and if he gets in on the Presidential debates (NBC, CNN and Fox requirements are polling at 10% to be included) then I would counter that with him getting a substantial part of the vote. Moreso if the fight comes down to Obama and Romney since they are 2 sides of the same coin. He is very different than those 2 on a number of issues.

Color me skeptical. The latest, best polling I've been able to find puts Johnson at 7% nationally. And I think that reflects the weakness of the GOP field more than any inherent strength that Johnson brings to the table. If the Libertarian Party actually reached 7% in a general election, I think they'd be justifiably ecstatic.

I've not seen any polling that places Johnson in the lead in a three-way race in New Mexico vs. Obama and Romney. The highest polling I saw for him there put him at about 23%, very respectable, but still in third place. And that's in a state where he's got good residual name recognition from his time in office as governor.

If you have different figures, please feel free to post. I'd love to see a more viable Libertarian Party. I just don't believe it's actually going to happen.

[rawpozbtm]

Rawpozbtm

Well, there are a lot of people who think Obama IS a socialist! LOL!!!

You probably wouldn't want FDR...but maybe his Lesbian wife Elenore!

I wish he was a socialist!! Why wouldn't I want FDR? Obamacare doesn't go far enough, because it should have a public option. Not a better leader?? Who are you comparing him to? George W Bush? Kim Jung Il? Po? Yeah he is a much better leader. FDR and Bill Clinton are my top 2 favorite Presidents.

[Deepanalnut]

Color me skeptical. The latest, best polling I've been able to find puts Johnson at 7% nationally. And I think that reflects the weakness of the GOP field more than any inherent strength that Johnson brings to the table. If the Libertarian Party actually reached 7% in a general election, I think they'd be justifiably ecstatic.

I've not seen any polling that places Johnson in the lead in a three-way race in New Mexico vs. Obama and Romney. The highest polling I saw for him there put him at about 23%, very respectable, but still in third place. And that's in a state where he's got good residual name recognition from his time in office as governor.

If you have different figures, please feel free to post. I'd love to see a more viable Libertarian Party. I just don't believe it's actually going to happen.

My mistake, I was referring to old (early Feb) and preliminary data. You are correct that polls from last week are showing at 7% nationally.

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-national/the-scenario-that-puts-gary-johnson-the-white-house was one of the articles that was talking about 10%.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Deepanalnut

[toxiclover]

You make some good points but the way I see it Ron Paul is the only candidate with credible plan to end the war on drugs, decriminalizing prostitution, ending the private federal reserve, stopping our endless wars, and removing the Federal gov't from the marriage issue.

He is the only one who will do what he says. Obama has been such a failure on drug, gay, and the war that I will never support him. Look at his top contributors. Goldman Sachs, JPM, CITI...the same as Mitt Romney.

fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

Here's my problem with Ron Paul: he's not really a libertarian, he's a federalist. What's the difference? Libertarians would like to see the choices on issues like gay marriage (and abortion and other hotbutton social issues) returned to the individual and to private organizations. If you want say you're married to an eggplant, libertarians have no problem with that. Libertarians basically want to render the argument over government recognition of marriage moot by removing all government recognition of marriage, including repealing laws and regulations that provide tax benefits to married couples, social security, health insurance regulations, etc. So, yes, libertarians have a good position on same-sex marriage. They just arrive at it by having (IMO) a pretty bad position on a lot of other things.

But that's not what Ron Paul's all about. He's been involved with the libertarian movement off and on for decades, but really, he's a federalist. What the difference? Yes, he wants the federal government out of the marriage business. He wants the federal government out of a lot of businesses it's in.

But Ron Paul doesn't return that power to regulate to the private citizen, the way a libertarian would, he turns it back over to the individual states. This ends up tossing out a lot of federal law that's poised to become very favorable to us. For instance, Ron Paul would permit states to reenact sodomy laws if they wanted to. Right now, the federal government prevents people from being arrested for having sex with someone of the same gender. Ron Paul would hand us back to the tender loving mercies of states like Alabama or Texas.

So if you're looking at gay rights alone (and I don't suggest you do), you want a candidate who will best push that agenda at the federal level. Ron Paul is not that candidate.