2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Jay Leno | Michelle Bachmann | News | Ron Paul

Ron Paul Talks Gay Marriage, Rips His Fellow Candidates: VIDEOS

Ron_Paul

Ron Paul appeared on The Tonight Show on Friday night and talked about a variety of issues. Gays were mentioned twice, once when Paul said that the governement should stay out of marriage, and once again when Leno asked Paul what he thinks of the other candidates.

Paul's answers, as Brandon mentioned in his round-up yesterday, were blunt. Of Michele Bachmann, he said, "She doesn't like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get 'em." OF Rick Santorum, Paul said he won't stop talking about "gay people and Muslims."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Gays should not trust Ron Paul. Just because he says that the Govt. should get out the marriage business, doesn't mean he thinks we should be a part of it. He has wavered on DOMA several times. Notice how he finesses his answer. He says that the government should get out of the marriage business but he doesn't really go further by saying that he supports gay marriage or that he would support a repeal of DOMA. He has been very open about his anti-war stances, dismantling this or that federal agency, legalizing drugs etc.

    Posted by: Christopher Lines | Dec 19, 2011 8:22:30 AM


  2. Bachman also hates gays--that is, unless they are in the closet like her husband.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Dec 19, 2011 8:24:43 AM


  3. @CandideinNC: I wouldn't be so sure. I'm sure that Bachman has realized that her husband has become a huge liability.

    Posted by: Paul R | Dec 19, 2011 9:14:41 AM


  4. "The government should stay out of marriage" is a NON-ANSWER. As long as there are over 1200 rights and protections provided to straight married couples that aren't provided to gay married couples, the government is irrefutably involved in marriage.

    If he supports gays getting those rights and protections, or even if he supports TAKING them from straights, he needs to clearly say as much, so we know what his actual platform is.

    His generalizations and ideological caveats make him virtually unelectable. ("Well I don't want ANYONE taxed, BUT before that can happen we need to change hundreds of laws, revamp civil service as we've known it for a century..." WTF good is an idea if you'd never be able to accomplish its prerequisites anyway? It's all just talk.)

    Posted by: sparks | Dec 19, 2011 9:27:18 AM


  5. Jay Leno is a HORRIBLE interviewer who doesn't listen and doesn't engage the person in conversation. He just sets up questions. Ron Paul gave interesting answers at odds with his opponents and Party, but Jay heard not one word of it, instead, he just breezed on to the next question. Leno asked what the main source of federal income would be, and Paul answered, "What it was before 1913", and Leno just let it go at that. It would have been nice to get some clarification on what that meant.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Dec 19, 2011 9:35:23 AM


  6. Again, Ron Paul is right more times than the other people running for the republican ticket. But when he's wrong, he's really, really wrong.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Dec 19, 2011 10:23:19 AM


  7. @Christopher Lines

    Ron Paul has made his position pretty clear over the years. He does not support a federal marriage amendment defining marriage in any way. He thinks it should be dealt with by the states if at all (though he thinks the states should stay out of it too). That's why NOM has publicly gone after him. Paul voted FOR repealing DADT. He only likes DOMA because of the provision that allows each state to determine for itself what its marriage laws are.

    Love him or hate him, there's one thing you can count on with Ron Paul, and that's that he'll stick to what he believes. He's a radical libertarian, so you have to consider that in your criticism. His views on what government should do are extremely limited. So this is how it goes according to Paul: marriage is no business of the federal government. He also thinks state governments should not be involved in marriage. His view is, quite simply, that marriage should be treated as a contract. He has pointed out time and again that government marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon in our history. He wants to go back to where it's a private affair and you don't get special privileges for it from the government, gay or straight or otherwise.

    Posted by: Annoyed | Dec 19, 2011 11:01:34 AM


  8. "So this is how it goes according to Paul: marriage is no business of the federal government."

    Then he's a hypocrite, because the federal government has been involved in Ron Paul's marriage for over 50 years, and, as far as I know, he has made no concrete proposals to get the government out of his marriage or out of the marriages of millions of straight people. Severing straight couples from federal benefits should be his first priority if he really wants the government out of marriage. Otherwise it's just blather that doesn't address the problem yet preserves the unequal status quo for gay couples.

    There's no reason gay people should buy into this argument until the "libertarians" who are making it snip themselves from the myriad federal benefits and protections they take without protest. In the meantime, let's put equality before hypotheticals.

    Furthermore, supporting DOMA also infringes on states rights. My state, VT, wants its married gay citizens to have the same rights its married straight citizens have; DOMA prevents that. So married gay VTers must jump through all sorts of hoops (tax, insurance, documents etc.) married straight VTers don't have to, creating two tiers of citizenship within my state. That's why the state of VT is part of the lawsuit to overturn DOMA, the type of court action Paul believes we should have no access to.

    Ron Paul may be clear on some issues, but his positions on marriage are both muddled and unworkable, much like his candidacy as a whole.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 19, 2011 11:46:14 AM


  9. @Annoyed: It's too late to try to put the marriage genie back in the bottle. Even if it were functionally possible for the government to rescind legal recognition of a married status as it pertains to any relevant public function, do you think for one moment that the heterosexuals would be willing to go along with such a proposal? Thus the whole claim of "it's not the government's business to define marriage" is a non-starter. Not only do the laws recognizing such unions exist to meet real and meaningful needs of married couples, there is no support for the consequences of rescinding that recognition among already married individuals. So Ron Paul's position on marriage is completely untenable. He knows it, too. It's just that people who support his kind of radical libertarianism are too shallow-thinking to examine the broad scope of the consequences. It's easy for him to pound the podium and make vague demands that government should keep out of our lives. But that attitude is ultimately facile and disingenuous.

    Posted by: atomic | Dec 19, 2011 11:55:26 AM


  10. I think he means that tax law should be independent of marital status, etc. when he says they should stay out. He's combating proposals by the others to give all sorts of family-based tax breaks out.

    Posted by: anon | Dec 19, 2011 1:48:48 PM


  11. We should enact marriage equality for gays, THEN work toward getting the government completely out of defining what is and is not marriage. If you enact marriage equality, all the Christians would see the light about having government define marriage.

    Of all candidates (including "I'm evolving" Obama), Ron Paul has the best chance of (1) openly discussing this, and (2) taking action.

    Posted by: Gina | Dec 19, 2011 2:41:02 PM


  12. He looks frail, and sounds foggy when he's off his rehearsed sound-bites. He has that nervous smile that the senile show when they want confirmation they've said the right thing. He's done.

    Ideologically? This man would respond to a crime wave by closing police departments. Not exactly the approach we need with wall street right now.

    Posted by: Jexer | Dec 19, 2011 3:20:06 PM


  13. "Then he's a hypocrite, because the federal government has been involved in Ron Paul's marriage for over 50 years, and, as far as I know, he has made no concrete proposals to get the government out of his marriage or out of the marriages of millions of straight people."

    First, I think you have a confused definition of "hypocrite." It's one thing to voluntarily do X while saying Y, clearly making one a hypocrite. It's quite another when the government forces you to do X. Paul also believes, as a result of his radical libertarian views, that the government should not build roads. Does that mean he shouldn't drive on them? No. The same is true with marriage. The government has monopolized marriage and even though he doesn't like it, he has to use it to have his contractual relationship with his wife recognized.

    Second, Paul is a FEDERAL official. Therefore, he should not be involved in getting government out of marriage at the state level. Paul has spoken out against and vote against any attempt to define marriage IN ANY WAY at the federal level.

    Posted by: Annoyed | Dec 19, 2011 8:21:27 PM


  14. "It's too late to try to put the marriage genie back in the bottle. Even if it were functionally possible for the government to rescind legal recognition of a married status as it pertains to any relevant public function, do you think for one moment that the heterosexuals would be willing to go along with such a proposal? Thus the whole claim of "it's not the government's business to define marriage" is a non-starter."

    That view is not only absurd but it is insulting to any minority who dissents from oppression by a majority and, hence, contradicts your own desire for protection of gay people. By that view, if something becomes politically unworkable due to totalitarian majoritarianism, the minority must acquiesce. While that view may have a certain practical appeal to it, I say that's a damnable doctrine. I say fiat justitia ruat caelum.

    "It's just that people who support his kind of radical libertarianism are too shallow-thinking to examine the broad scope of the consequences."

    Shallow thinking? I don't think that's it at all. Try reading "Man, Economy, and State" and then tell me libertarianism is the result of "shallow thinking." It comes down to how strongly one holds to principles. Libertarians aren't afraid to logically extend the free-market philosophy to every area. This logical consistency is what makes them "extreme" and "radical." It isn't shallow. It's simply that the majority, aka people like you, don't like the implications .

    Posted by: Annoyed | Dec 19, 2011 8:40:36 PM


  15. "The government has monopolized marriage and even though he doesn't like it, he has to use it to have his contractual relationship with his wife recognized."

    Completely untrue. No one is forcing Paul to be married by the governent, what nonsense. His contractual relationship with his partner could be achieved, approximately, with legal papers, just as gay couples legally recognize their marriages because they have no alternative. The difference is gay couples don't have the choice whether to involve the federal government, but Ron Paul does. And he has chosen freely to take all the benefits and protections the federal government provides him. His words on marriage are indeed shallow and meaningless as long as he's freely taking advantage of what we're denied. Hypocrite.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 20, 2011 12:26:15 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «He's Dead.« «