Ron Paul's Homophobia In Context
As the furor over Ron Paul's 20-year-old, allegedly racist/homophobic/classist/sexist/whatever newsletters has raged on and on, more than one thoughtful soul has wondered if Dr. Paul might not be being quoted out of context. It is certainly possible, say, to imagine a context in which this quote might be harmless:
...the largest blood bank in San Francisco ... holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they're trying to poison the blood supply.
... for example, by ending it with the phrase: "Though obviously anyone who believes that is a misanthropic crank who should never, under any circumstances, be taken seriously."
Well, now we know for a fact what Ron Paul really wrote, thanks to The New Republic. And man, he really didn't like gays. (And yes, it seems Ron Paul really did write these things, no matter what he says, because they're filled with utterances like ""Just because I favor the legalization of drugs doesn't mean I'm in favor of using them. As a physician, I know they're bad stuff.") TNR has scanned page after page of Dr. Paul's old newsletters, and again and again he displays the most atrocious paranoia -- he really seems to have believed, in the late 80's and early 90s, that the gays wanted to rape children, desecrate the Eucharist (which, to be fair, some of us do), die young of atrocious diseases on the taxpayer's dime, and give everyone AIDS.
And he seems to have liked blacks even less than he liked gays.
For the record, Ron Paul's now the favorite to win Iowa.




GLORIA OF BORG = Certifiable nut job.
Posted by: TJ | Dec 25, 2011 9:40:14 PM
Paul does not support gay rights. He may be against discrimination on a federal level but only only on the principle of it being a federal law. He doesn't support the Lawrence v. Texas decision and is perfectly okay with states criminalizing gay sex. Paul just trades bigotry at one level for another.
Posted by: Bruno | Dec 25, 2011 10:05:58 PM
The swarm of crazy Paultards this article has attracted is probably a good thing. It shows the rest of us how crazy they are and how crazy it would be to vote against Obama and our own best interests. Most of us who frequent this site have common sense and will not be seduced by crazy GOProudettes and Paultards.
Posted by: candide001 | Dec 25, 2011 11:18:15 PM
Wow...who knew that so many Paulist would come out of the woodwork over this post. If I had any reason to vote against President Obama, which I don't, the comments here have proven to me that Dr. Paul has a loyal following of die-hard fans. There is something very unsettling to me about the notion of a president who would eliminate so many safeguards in America. Sure, there are some issues that Paul raises that are sound on some levels, yet I just don't think that I'd be terribly eager to live in a nation without many federal agencies that protect consumers.
Posted by: TampaDink | Dec 25, 2011 11:41:05 PM
@David Ehrenstein: Yes, my parents more than tolerated my ex (of 17 years). We went on vacations together. They bought him gifts for his birthday and Christmas. They most certainly would have attended our wedding had we opted to have one (luckily, given how things worked out, we didn't). They saw how happy he made me, and that made them happy.
I have four straight older brothers, and I've caused my parents a lot fewer problems than any of them. Possibly because when I was young I was scared about how they'd respond to my being gay and so made sure that I'd be self-sufficient. So I graduated high school when I was 16 and made sure I knew how to type and perform basic computer skills so that I'd always be able to get a decent-paying job. But it didn't matter. It never crossed my parents' minds to do anything besides love me.
And two of my four brothers switched to being Dems because of me. I'm not sure the other two have ever seen a voting machine....
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 26, 2011 12:08:04 AM
What coincidence these "Ron Paul newsletters" have suddenly been "discovered" now that Ron Paul is in the lead in the Iowa primary.
I'm surprised they haven't accused Ron Paul of trying to develop "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as well.
Posted by: Don't be Gullible | Dec 26, 2011 12:11:03 AM
Some of Ron Paul's policy positions are crazy enough on their own merits. For example, he's against the 2003 Supreme Court decision to strike down the sodomy laws; Ron Paul thinks it's fine for states to pass sodomy laws.
But letting people write for you and not even giving the articles a quick glance before you sign your name to the article is just plain S-T-U-P-I-D. I wouldn't want someone that dense running the country, would you? A few of the fanatical Ron Paul supporters here have suggested that this is like other writers, like Brandon K. Thorp, writing a post on Andy Towle's blog. That's a false comparison because on Towleroad, you can see the writer's name just under the text of the post. If you download one of the PDF scans of the "Ron Paul Political Report," you'll see that no writer's name appears other than Ron Paul. What kind of dumb ass would do this and then expect that American voters would elect him president?
Posted by: Artie | Dec 26, 2011 12:21:40 AM
@ Don't Be Gullible,
You'll notice that stupid things that people do don't attract a lot of public attention until they run for national office. Is this a spooky coincidence? No, it just wasn't newsworthy until Ron Paul was a front-runner in a presidential primary. Is that too hard to figure out?
How f*cking brainless do you have to be to have bigoted "ghostwriters" writing your newsletter, and then only putting your own name on the newsletter without even reading the frigging thing! Is Ron Paul's middle name Dumas, with a silent "s"? Or is the "s" in his middle name pronounced, as in "D-u-m-b A-s-s"?
Posted by: Artie | Dec 26, 2011 12:34:39 AM
Wow
I don't have anything for or against Paul
But at the end of the day he is not going to get the nod. He may win a few states, like he always does, but will not get the nomination. I think someday someone like him will win but it won't be this time. His best bet would be to run as a 3rd party, but i don't think he will. I do kinda think we are going to have a 3rd party this time, what do other people think?
So that will leave the two, the one we know or the one we don't. For me my opinion I'm sticking with the one I know.
Posted by: George M | Dec 26, 2011 12:56:23 AM
Paul is the most anti gay candidate in the race. His policy is 'no gay marriage. Churches get to keep marriage'. "Leave it up to the states to decide" means "leave it to churches". Obama will bring federal marriage in his second term but under Paul, gays would live severely restricted lives with next to no rights or protections. Make no mistake, Paul is extremely conservative, religious, right wing with a disdain for gays and minorities. His followers prove that he is truly insane.
Posted by: mk_ultra_again | Dec 26, 2011 2:03:55 AM
Ron Paul's campaign chairman from 2008 was gay and was the brute force, pushing Paul to the podium.
Paul voted for the MLK Jr holiday.
When others like Newt G. did not.
These are pretty lame character smears and only a dullard will take the media's word; character assasination is their Joie de vivre. His books and voting record, personal life and public life as a doctor (where he never turned away a patient) and Congressman speak otherwise.
Posted by: Chris H | Dec 26, 2011 7:28:04 AM
Nice to know that typing and "computer skills" have been a boin to you, Paul R.
What about the gay rights movement? Just a lot of background noise I suppose.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 26, 2011 7:55:26 AM
Nice to see there is apparently a large segment of the gay community who WON'T automatically vote Democratic on command. They actually THINK for themselves. (Imagine that) And they don't believe everything they read in the lamestream newsmedia. BRAVO!
Posted by: Harry Free Agent | Dec 26, 2011 10:12:32 AM
I think that some people are assuming that because Ron Paul is not actively and openly ANTI-gay rights he must therefore be PRO-gay rights, never taking into consideration that he may be completely INDIFFERENT. Taking a "leave it up the the individual states" stance does not say pro-equality to me. Because of so many of his supporters insisting here in this forum that Ron Paul is a champion of gay rights and marriage equality I went to his website to read in his own words what he has to say about these issues. So I clicked on "the Issues" link and...not a word about equality, marriage, gay people but lots to say about guns, immigration and abortion. One would think that if EQUALITY was an important issue to him he would have his people include it somewhere on his website, sprinkle a few quotes, list a few of his voting records. But, nope, there is NOTHING. I think it is a huge mistake to think that because he does not say anything directly against us that somehow magically he is FOR us.
Posted by: Paul | Dec 26, 2011 10:15:27 AM
Harry
When Ron's not on the ticket what do you do? I see how you think it's on command but how does a gay person listen to the comments and votes coming out of the GOP and vote for them? Explain That to me, if you don't mind
Posted by: George M | Dec 26, 2011 10:34:32 AM
Maybe somebody should tell the author that he currently wants the federal government out of dictating marrage........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
All in all I give this a F+ for the Terrible misdirection effort. But come on, anybody who watches this man speak for more than a second just knows that this man really cares about your rights.
Posted by: Bob Barker | Dec 26, 2011 12:38:52 PM
"Maybe somebody should tell the author that he currently wants the federal government out of dictating marriage."
And that helps your argument how? Google Loving vs. Virginia.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | Dec 26, 2011 12:49:08 PM
Ron Paul hired Maine's anti Gay warrior Mike Heath to help his 2012 campaign in IA. As for racists, Jesse Benton has ties to the Kentucky League of the South. A White Supremacist Hate Group advocating a second southern secession from the Union. Ron Paul's hate and racism is his past and the present and will be in his heart until the day he dies.
Posted by: Mac | Dec 26, 2011 12:57:50 PM
Oh I forgot Ron Paul's ties to a Christian Reconstructionists like his life long friend Gary North and his endorsement of Pastor Chuck Baldwin POTUS after bowing out of the race in 2008. Just sayin'
Posted by: Mac | Dec 26, 2011 1:05:26 PM
Marriage is a function of the State -- not the Church.
The church may perform marriages. It does so at the behest of the state.
The church has it's "beliefs" about marriage and is free to hold them. In actual social practice they don't mean diddly-squat.
Your priest/ minsiter/ rabbi et. al does not divorce you. That's a function of the state that married you.
Why is this so hard tofigure out? This notion of "taking the government out of marriage" is idiotic for it would give marriages no leagl standing whatsoever. Is this what you Paltards want?
"Mac" gets it. SING OUT LOUISE!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 26, 2011 1:11:13 PM
Has Ron Paul actually said he wants the government to "get out of marriage"? The more this man opens his mouth, the crazier he looks. Marriage has been a civil matter for the secular authorities since the sixteenth-century Reformation, in Protestant countries, and since the Napoleonic Age in Catholic countries. Didn't Ron Paul get that memo? Marriage is necessarily a civil rather than religious institution because it determines government benefits. No one has yet explained why Ron Paul says such foolish things.
Posted by: Artie | Dec 26, 2011 1:35:53 PM
@Ehrenstein: Yes, typing skills were a major "boin" to me...when I was 16 and earning $11 an hour as a temp while my friends were earning $4.25. Now I'm 39.
What does any of that have to do with gay rights? You have no idea how much volunteer time I've given, how many marches I've been in, or how much money I've donated. I'll answer for you: a lot.
You really have ability to take anything and twist it to be negative. Bitter much? I'm not responsible for my parents' political or religious views, but I won't apologize for them either. Sure, it would be great if we were on the exact same page. But I've changed the views of them and many of their friends when it comes to gay issues, so cut the castigating, holier-than-thou crap.
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 26, 2011 1:45:52 PM
If in doubt; Chicken Out; Do NOT vote for Ron Paul.
Posted by: Jerry6 | Dec 26, 2011 1:51:37 PM
"You have no idea how much volunteer time I've given, how many marches I've been in, or how much money I've donated. I'll answer for you: a lot."
Mazel Tov.
"You really have ability to take anything and twist it to be negative. Bitter much?"
You have no idea.
"I'm not responsible for my parents' political or religious views, but I won't apologize for them either. Sure, it would be great if we were on the exact same page. But I've changed the views of them and many of their friends when it comes to gay issues, so cut the castigating, holier-than-thou crap."
Well if you've changed their views in any way you ARE responsible.
Make up your mind.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 26, 2011 1:56:34 PM
@Artie:Has Ron Paul actually said he wants the government to "get out of marriage"?
Almost. Ron Paul wants the FEDERAL government to get out of marriage. He believes marriage laws should be left up to the states. Right off the bat, that would mean a repeal of all benefits conferred by federal marriage laws. It could also lead to an overturning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, as individual states would be able to limit (or expand) who may marry as the states see fit.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | Dec 26, 2011 2:43:42 PM