Ron Paul: Heterosexuals Cause More Trouble in the Military Than Gays

Ron Paul spoke to Iowa State's Barry Snell about a variety of topics but offered his opinion about 'DADT' and same-sex marriage:

Paul“Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn’t a problem. It’s only if they’re doing things they shouldn’t be, if they’re disruptive. But there’s … men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there’s a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they’re causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same.”

He also said that the government should have no say in marriage:

"You know I just, I don't think of people in little groups like that. I don't think of people as ‘gay' here and ‘black people' there, or ‘women' over here…Everybody is an individual person and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair and the federal government has no say."

(via think progress lgbt)

Comments

  1. TANK says

    Let me tell everyone here something: anytime you hear a white, straight, well-to-do male say that everyone is the same, individuals are individuals and not just parts of a group, etc., he’s just finding a way to keep people like him on top, and everyone else on the bottom. This old crank is crazy, but he’s crazy like a fox. Don’t be stupid and fall for his high-falutin’ talk!

  2. brianinla says

    Wow! A positive post on Ron Paul?? I’m impressed! Now if only the overall gay population can start opening up their closed minded “must be Democrat” brains and realize that Ron Paul is an excellent choice for President. It took me awhile, but I really love this guy. He believes in rights for everyone and getting the government out of our lives. Less government, means more freedom and rights to us! And Obama, sadly, is the ultimate Big Government man.

  3. says

    I’m with Tank on this.

    The first part of Paul’s statement sounds quite reasonable, but the second is ridiculous. Doesn’t this man know that marriage is a function of government? Doesn’t he know that it’s a contract issued by the state? Or has he been so brainwashed by organized religion that he thinks mariage is owned and operated by the church?

    Try getting a divirce from a church why don’t you!

  4. says

    He doesn’t sound reasonable. He sounds disconnected from reality.

    Contrary to Ron’s magical thinking, everybody does not have the same rights as everyone else. Ron Paul has the right to marry and has taken advantage of it–if he believes the government has no place in marriage, why does he have a civil marriage with the 1000+ benefits and protections that come only through the government. And “gay marriage” is not a “private affair” that the federal government has no say in. The federal government is saying that gay people, even though they are equal taxpaying citizens, have no right to marry whereas straight people, like Ron Paul, do. Seems like that’s a say. Until fake libertarians take the government out of their own marriages, they need to stop talking about taking the government out of ours, before ours even exist.

  5. Cecilfirefox says

    This is a bit interesting- especially considering he proposed a completely unconstitutional bill called the ” We The People Act,” that would have made it impossible to bring a lawsuit into the federal courts on any issues dealing with sexual orientation. I like what I’m hearing, but this is different then what I’ve been hearing before.

  6. Steve says

    As said, he is off on the government part. Government is very much involved in marriage and a ridiculous amount of benefits flow from it. Too much of them are tied to marriage, but you can’t get rid of all of it.

    But he isn’t a viable political candidate. He is an anarcho capitalist. His positions on economic matters and other stuff are completely crazy and unrealistic

  7. says

    The first comment is funny and it also underscores the inescapable reality (pay attention braying commenters who are against blogs having opinions) that blogs and all media ARE opinion; every choice is an opinion, intentional or not.

    I like the photo choice.

    Ron Paul is insane. It’s great that he’s saying nice things about gay men here, but he’s insane. Also, he supports DOMA, so there goes that.

    And David’s point is so right—the entire argument about marriage is ABOUT the government.

  8. Steve says

    Yeah, he supports DOMA because he thinks it’s necessary for the states to make their own decisions about marriage. Which isn’t true. And if he were consistent about treating gay people equally and less government intrusion into their lives, he’d be against it

  9. robert in nyc says

    Oh please, Ron Paul! You know darned well that the government will NEVER be out of the marriage business. There isn’t one western government that isn’t. How would one gain the federal rights and privileges that only marriage can confer? Using his argument is cover to get him off the hook.

    Further, he supports a state’s right to allow the Defense of Marriage Act to be the law of any state that so legislates as well as those who don’t want it. Seems like he wants it both ways. Yet another slimey way to get himself off the hook to appease other republicans.

  10. robert in nyc says

    Brianinla….read my last post regarding DOMA. He’d make an excellent president? Really? In his view, there would be no repeal of DOMA and no marriage equality in every state if both are left for the states to decide.

  11. Robert says

    Dr. Ron Paul is without a doubt the best republican candidate running for president. It’s just too bad that his Anti-War and “America First” message are DESPISED and HATED by the corporate newsmedia. That is why his campaign has been so shamelessly blacklisted by the corrupt newsmedia.

  12. Sargon Bighorn says

    Gay America needs to free it self from the false dichotomy of R vs D. There are other political view points and they do in deed and fact favor equal treatment under the law. But Gay citizens like Str8 citizens often don’t bother to get educated about the political facts. Thank you Towleroad for this educational moment.

  13. bicurious says

    Sure this sounds reasonable but if he is so reasonable why was he so rude to and far from accepting of Bruno when he didn’t know that there were cameras running?

  14. MM says

    Quite frankly, Ron Paul’s position sounds a lot more inclusive than our President’s position. Let us not forget that our President is still “evolving” on the marriage issue.

  15. OMNOMNOM says

    Wow! I am shocked to hear all this hate for Ron Paul. While he may not be THE candidate to support for gay rights, he’s the clear leader where economics and government are concerned. He’s by far the best option for President that we have right now, and I’d be elated to have him in the White House. It’s just too bad the corrupt media blackball him (since they know he would knock down their house of cards).

  16. says

    Anyone who thinks Ron Paul’s views on gay rights are more inclusive than the President’s is misinformed. Not that he will ever be President, but–aside from the Paul trolls, who post only when he comes up–I have no idea why anyone thinks he would be good or even adequate on gay rights. Saying get the government out of marriage from a straight married man is nonsense.

  17. says

    “Marriage is a social contract between consenting adults. Thus Government has no play in this.”

    Actually, the US government has a lot of play in marriage since the benefits and protections of marriage come exclusively through the government. So, sure it’s a social contract, but unless married straight people are rejecting the governmental protections and benefits (which may not even be possible), they are in a government contract.

    One can argue that the government should be out of the marriage business altogether–as Ron Paul has–but anyone who makes that argument while married and taking advantage of its many benefits–as Ron Paul and most “libertarians” do–needs to answer for their hypocrisy. You can have a loving relationship without the US government, but you can’t have a legal marriage without it.

    Consenting adults who don’t believe in marriage as it is currently defined need to stop being married before they tell us it’s only a “social contract” with no governmental involvement.

  18. OMNOMNOM says

    @ERNIE,

    Sorry, but you just don’t get it.

    He’s not saying the federal government has nothing to do with marriages and that marital status plays no part in legislation…

    He is saying that this is a State issue. Sure, the benefits of marriage would still come from the federal level, but the definition of marriage does not and should not.

  19. says

    Sorry, OMNOMNOM, but I do get it. You and Ron Paul don’t have to agree with me, but misunderstanding Ron Paul (despite his inarticulateness and incoherence about marriage and religion) is not my problem.

    Saying it is a state issue is not helpful to gay people. Because straight people can marry in every state. Because their marriages aren’t subject to the whims of state bigotry. Our marriages are. As long as straight marriages are a state and federal civil/governmental institution, there is no reason ours should not be the same. Supporting DOMA and the states rights argument doesn’t cut it for gay couples in any practical sense.

    Ron Paul has taken advantage of the 1000+ rights and benefits of a federally recognized civil marriage for decades now. Has he turned away health insurance for his family that comes through the government? Will he reject social security? Inheritance benefits? Hospital visitation rights? Medical decision rights? Did his children not benefit from his marriage? Does he file 2 tax forms or pretend he’s single to the IRS?

    Leaving marriage to the states changes straight marriages not one iota, because they take the state and federal rights for granted. Leaving marriage to the states is leaving gay couples out in the wind. What makes you think “the benefits of marriage would still come from the federal level” if we cannot marry or if our state marriages are not recognized federally? We get zero federal benefits now because of DOMA, which Ron Paul supports. My state is prohibited from allowing gay VT couples to be equal to straight VT couples due to DOMA. (Ron Paul believes we shouldn’t even be able to take that inequity to court.)

    I don’t get how Paul supporters believe that his views on marriage will make us equal to straight people in the real world?

  20. Mary says

    Well, of course heterosexuals cause more trouble in the military than gays. There are so many more of them (straights) – and even the gays that are there were, until recently, closeted. For a man as bright as Ron Paul, this was an incredible “duh” moment!

    I was not a supporter of homosexuals serving openly in the military, but I’ll admit that I don’t really know enough about military life to have an informed opinion on the subject. However, as soon as DADT was overturned I felt happy for those who could serve openly and started to think that maybe this change could work. The good news here is that unlike gay marriage we’ll know fairly soon whether or not this change has serious consequences. Homophobia within the military should decline over time, so problems that occur due to intolerance should decline as time goes on. My gut feeling is that political correctness on gay issues, rather than the personal behavior of gay servicemembers themselves will cause whatever serious problems may occur.

  21. OMNOMNOM says

    No, ERNIE, you don’t get it. In Ron Paul’s world, there is no need for the federal government to recognize a marriage, because it’s not a decision for the federal government to make.

    If a couple is deemed married by the authorities that marry people (which could be the State, chaplains, priests, High Priestesses, Justices of the Peace, etc), then they are married as far as the government is concerned. Period. The federal government would have no authority to make a decision whether to recognize a marriage or not.

    Ron Paul may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but his politics dictate liberty for all. I highly encourage you to become educated about his stances and what they really mean, because you’re so hung up on how you see gay rights that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  22. Rin says

    Ron Paul is a strict “Constitutionist” and if that makes him crazy then so where Madison and Adams.

    When he says everyone has the same rights…he’s right. Are those rights enforced? No. He often speaks philosophically to make a point that we have rights whether the government recognizes them or not.

    There are rights given to the States and rights given to the Federal government for a reason by the Founding Fathers. There is also a way for States to come together and change the Constitution.

    It’s really not a bad document. It’s the people managing it that are bad.

    For people saying that “marriage” is owned by the government…that’s recent. It is entwined with taxes and the ONLY reason why marrieds get benefits–rather GOT benefits that were “special” was because of children.

    It wasn’t out of some egalitarian thing. It was financial.

  23. says

    “In Ron Paul’s world, there is no need for the federal government to recognize a marriage, because it’s not a decision for the federal government to make.”

    Exactly, OMNOMNOM. You’re talking about Ron Paul’s world. I’m talking about the real world. People who live in different worlds are unlikely to find common ground.

    In the real world, the federal government is involved with marriage (including Ron Paul’s marriage) and the federal policy, DOMA, which Ron Paul supports, prevents married gay couples from receiving equal rights. Leaving marriage to the states means, in the real world, that gay couples in a vast majority of states, where bigotry rules, will receive none of the benefits and protections of marriage that straight people, including Ron Paul, take for granted.

    Those who believe that the federal government should be disentangled from marriage need to come up with some solid proposals for doing so, since Ron Paul (who clearly has no real understanding of marriage laws and has no problem with the federal government’s involvement in his own marriage) isn’t going to do it. His time is passing.

    For the rest of us, it’s not that we “don’t get” Ron Paul’s ideas. We get them, when he actually presents clear ideas, and we reject them. Very different.

  24. brianinla says

    Coast-to-caost, national support for gay marriage is decades away. In fact, it may never happen. Attempting to get marriage on the federal level is a lost cause for the gay population at this time, and it’s time we start thinking outside of that box.

    DOMA has many, many cons, but it also has one major pro. Each state gets to choose how they want to define marriage, and the federal government has no choice but to accept it. Sure, Texas doesn’t have to recognize the gay marriages from Iowa, but those gays who are married in Iowa get the 1000+ rights every straight gets as well bc they come from the federal gov. Granted, gays would have to realize what state’s recognize their marriage and would still be limited in some ways. BUT, it’s a start. States define marriage, and then the fed has to give the rights. That’s how our system is set up.

    Throwing out DOMA is the wrong answer. Until the nation as a whole is ready to vote in gay marriage (which I doubt will ever happen), DOMA is our best tool to use. It lets Georgia have its “man and woman” marriage, while at the same time allows Vermont to choose what is best for their state. It’s much easier to change the laws on a state level, than on a federal level and that’s what DOMA recognizes.

    Besides, it’s hard enough trying to convince Californians to vote in favor of gay marriage in our state alone. Having to convince the entire country is such a losing battle.

    State by state is the best way to go, at least until there is clear and convincing evidence that the nation as a whole is ready for it. And, it’s definitely not.

  25. Gene Elder says

    The reason that the media try to discredit Ron is because he speaks the truth and the current 2 Party Dictatorship doesn’t like that. I agree with Ron, we should be auditing the Federal Reserve Bank and the current OWS movement proves it.
    Gene Elder, elder4tomato@yahoo.com
    HAPPY Foundation, a GayBLT history archives
    Archives Director
    San Antonio, Texas
    by the Alamo

  26. says

    Brian, you’re misinformed about DOMA. DOMA prevents married gay couples in my state, VT (and the other states with marriage equality) from receiving any federal marriage benefits. That’s why there are multiple law suits working their ways through the courts and why parts of DOMA have already been declared unconstitutional. Until DOMA is overturned, gay and straight married couples will not be equal. (As I’ve already said, Ron Paul supports DOMA and does not support our right to sue for our constitutional right to marry.)

    On civil rights, you don’t wait until “there is clear and convincing evidence that the nation as a whole is ready for it” and fight it state by state. If mixed-race couples had waited for all the states to cheer their marriages, there would probably still be states where a black woman could not marry a white man. Civil rights aren’t about popularity, they are about justice. We’ve actually made large strides in the past decade. Because we are finally demanding our rights and because the constitution is on our side.

    Marriage equality is not decades away. It is inevitable. Unless we stupidly decide to fight this state by state and elect Republicans or faux-libertarian politicians who will stack the courts with those who do not recognize our basic rights.

Leave A Reply