tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538489781530566841.post6388588857967405124..comments2023-03-25T01:42:23.123-07:00Comments on Atomic Gay Wonk: Kent Snyder, the libertarian Terry DolanUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538489781530566841.post-16796173299511295232008-10-09T09:01:00.000-07:002008-10-09T09:01:00.000-07:00Perhaps Kent Snyder was so devoted to Ron Paul's c...Perhaps Kent Snyder was so devoted to Ron Paul's cause because... that cause is not against gay people? I know some gay people who supported Ron Paul and saw no problem with his views.<BR/><BR/>As the first poster said, he simply believes states-- and that people in those states-- should have the right to decide the laws of their own state, without the federal government intervening. This applies with the war on drugs, medical marijuana, gun laws, the Real ID Act, education, gay marriage, civil unions and heterosexual marriage. It applies with anything. This is a classic federalist view as the founders held. The Constitution discusses the rights held by the federal government, then says all other rights are reserved for the states.<BR/><BR/>Remember when California wanted more emissions laws, and the EPA said absolutely not, a state can't have stricter emissions laws than the federal government? Ron Paul would have been on the side of California. That doesn't mean that he favors emissions laws or doesn't favor them, he just favors a state's right to choose its own laws. That certainly doesn't mean that interracial marriage would still be illegal in any state. What states would have that law by popular vote? Even in the South, polls overwhelmingly are against bans on interracial marriage. What politician could get elected in heavily black Mississippi or North Carolina today by advocating a position against interracial marriage or civil rights?<BR/><BR/>The current situation simply has courts deciding that gay marriage must be allowed, at which time a referendum is sought to create a constitutional amendment to ban it, which is usually successful. In the end, that actually sets back the cause of gay marriage. If no judicial ruling preceded it, a law would suffice rather than a constitutional amendment, and a law is much easier to change. Andrew Sullivan was one of the first people to make the case for gay marriage, and he endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primary.<BR/><BR/>If you disagree with the federalist position, that's fine and you can say so. But it's being disingenuous to imply that it's "anti-gay," since it applies to any type of law, not just gay marriage. It's not "anti-marijuana" or "pro-marijuana" or "pro-emissions laws" or "anti-Real ID" or any of those things. It's simply a viewpoint on the Constitution which some hold and some don't.<BR/><BR/>If, for instance, California votes that it would like to keep gay marriage legal, and the federal government tried to come in and ban it, Ron Paul would stand up for California's right to gay marriage. He's voted against a Constitutional ban on gay marriage for that reason.<BR/><BR/>If you do think these positions are anti-gay, then I have news for you: any gay staffer who has worked for Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or Joe Biden must be even more self-hating than Kent Snyder. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and none of those three are for gay marriage in any form, in any way (civil unions don't count, and I don't think they're in favor of those, either). Ron Paul would defend any state's right to choose gay marriage if its people wanted it, and he has also defended any person's right to have any type of association-- including marriage-- with any other person without the state being involved at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538489781530566841.post-12930135311343752272008-08-26T21:30:00.000-07:002008-08-26T21:30:00.000-07:00Neither Ron Paul nor "Anonymous" has the least und...Neither Ron Paul nor "Anonymous" has the least understanding of the United States Constitution, clearly. To argue, as Paul does, that the U.S. Supreme Court may not protect people's equal rights under the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause of the Constitution is simply ignorant.<BR/><BR/>"Anonymous" hasn't a clue about basic facts in the issues he/she cites. It was state governments that prohibited interracial marriage; it was the U.S. Supreme Court, properly interpreting the Constitution, that ruled that such state bans are unconstitutional abrogations of citizens' rights.<BR/><BR/>If we let ignoramuses like Ron Paul and "Anonymous" impose their bizarre views on this country, interracial marriage would still be illegal in some states, millions of women would still have no right to make their own reproductive health decisions, and couples -- including married heterosexual couples -- who engage in certain intimate acts would be criminals.<BR/><BR/>Ron Paul's ideology has no basis in constitutional law, and his views are dangerous and come perilously close to being un-American. His "We the People" speech all by itself proves what an extremist lunatic he is. Thank goodness his campaign was as stillborn as his nutty ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538489781530566841.post-77657202098306167232008-07-17T11:38:00.000-07:002008-07-17T11:38:00.000-07:00You need to understand the constitution in order t...You need to understand the constitution in order to understand Ron Paul. The man will die protecting the rights of Florida to create a hetero marriage bill and would also die defending the right of California creating a pro-gay marriage bill. <BR/><BR/>The federal government has no role in deciding who should be married. The government got involved once blacks and whites started getting married. You needed a "Marriage License" in order to get married. We stuck to this idiotic system and excluded homosexuals due to the fact that most Americans are religious. The goal should be as Ron Paul put it, to stop the Federal Government from letting the supreme court create new law from the bench. <BR/><BR/>Roe vs. Wade was a horrible president. The federal gov. has no constitutional authority telling states how to treat abortion. It is not in the constitution. If Roe vs. Wade went the other way and denied women the right, all liberal voters would be lined up to agree with Dr. Paul's views.<BR/><BR/>At first glance Dr. Paul seems to be what every cheap uneducated reporter makes him out to be. Once you read his books and truly listen to his views you too might become a supporter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com