2012 Election | AIDS/HIV | Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Homophobia In Context

RonpaulAs 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.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. All the republican candidates would endorse the murder of gays if it was a more mainstream position.
    I think that only Bachman and Santorum have officially sanctioned the murder of gays so far in the campaign.

    Posted by: devon charles | Dec 24, 2011 5:53:48 PM

  2. So, the only question is [1] was he lying when he led people to believe that he wrote his own newsletter, or [2] is he lying now when he says he didn't.

    The first would be a lie for monetary gain, the second for political gain.

    Posted by: Vint | Dec 24, 2011 5:54:29 PM

  3. Ron Paul likely didn't write the newsletters himself, but it's clear he approved them and his campaign engaged in fueling bigotry and homophobia for two decades.

    Paul is the enemy of gays and should be opposed like the demagogue he is.

    Posted by: Xtab | Dec 24, 2011 5:55:52 PM

  4. Not that I'm a Paul supporter, but, really, the reaction to this seems amusingly overwrought and naive to me. Why? Can anybody cite ANYTHING showing the other Republican candidates think any differently? (specifically, the homophobia in the newsletters, not that the racism is excusable) Mitt Romney might be just a little less insane, but that's arguably negated in some way by his Mormonism. He's such a professional conman he'd be sure never to say such things, even if he believed them.

    As for "HOMOSTOHELL" we have a probable Paul supporter showing what about 75% of them really think. I'm not saying gays and lesbians have to be card carrying democrats, but those supporting a candidate like Paul "deserve what they get". Can anybody see Paul vetoing a congressional repeal of the DADT repeal? Seriously, people, stop and think here for a minute. That being said, I think it's good he says he would stop the growth of military spending. I actually agree with that. Thing is, it's not a president's budget to make, only to veto, and it will never happen no matter who gets elected to Congress or the White House. Too many hands in too many cookie jars around the country.

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Dec 24, 2011 6:02:43 PM

  5. Ron Paul - the original honey badger

    Posted by: bozemanmontana | Dec 24, 2011 6:04:52 PM

  6. Not that I plan on voting for Ron Paul for any reason, but...

    I seem to remember something that John Edwards said in the not-too-distant past about how his personal feelings, strong as they are or may be, do not have any place in his role of determining public policy. Every other Republican candidate in the field right now has made it clear that they intend to MAKE their personal beliefs public policy, Paul has made a point -- and perhaps this is really him playing the Libertarian card more than anything else, but still -- of saying that he will take public policy positions that are directly opposite of his (perhaps presumed) personal beliefs.

    Skepticism is certainly warranted in situations such as this, but I think that in this much for a guy to openly espouse a position so unpopular in the established conservative hierarchy is worth something.

    Posted by: Jerry | Dec 24, 2011 6:05:32 PM

  7. @Alex — How in the world is it "clear [that] Paul didn't write these" articles when they were published in a newsletter with his name on the masthead?

    Posted by: Eaves | Dec 24, 2011 6:10:09 PM

  8. A few non-gay anti-gay trolls too.

    Don't be so sure. More like closeted-gay anti-gay trolls.

    All the republican candidates would endorse the murder of gays if it was a more mainstream position.

    Exactly. Although maybe with First "Real Man" Marcus, we'd get off lucky with forced conversion camps in the Arizona desert or something LOL. Clear us of our "thinful nature".

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Dec 24, 2011 6:10:37 PM

  9. wow. that was dreadfully dishonest and misleading. the comments that lead you to believe that he wrote the questionable material were not part of the same articles. No one has argued that he wrote that stuff. that argument simply is not credible. and it really is worth reading the articles in their entirety to see the full context. it doesn't seem like many people are doing that before they go our guns a-blazing with their prejudices.

    Posted by: sally | Dec 24, 2011 6:14:50 PM

  10. Totally outrageous, and yet, who DIDN'T think the same horrible things about gay men ten years earlier??

    Posted by: h | Dec 24, 2011 6:15:11 PM

  11. I dont care what he supposedly said in 1993. I dont care what his social views have supposedly changed/morphed into now.....

    The fact is, Mr Paul wants to see the US government abolished as we know it. With very little power to regulate biz. Help its citizens. Alleviate recessions. tax the wealthy. etc etc

    His view of the USA is one of a circa 1800 politician. It isnt practical in this millenium and its implementation would be disasterous to the populace except for the very wealthy. sorry ron, my boy

    Posted by: stevenelliot | Dec 24, 2011 6:20:12 PM

  12. Paul is responsible for the bigoted crap, whether he wrote it or not. He published it and profited from it. He has never given a clear, non-weaseling account of why he did so. He's a shady, nasty little sociopath like the rest of the Republican presidential field.

    Posted by: AdamK | Dec 24, 2011 6:21:18 PM

  13. This thread is full of idiots, not to mention folks who would be banned anywhere else for their antigay sentiments.

    A public figure makes a small fortune off material published under his name, but never notices the content? Would you excuse such bs from anyone else? It doesn't begin to pass the smell test.

    It is a sign of the state of public education in this country that so many fall in love with a stopped clock that happens to be right on occasion.

    Posted by: melvin | Dec 24, 2011 6:23:24 PM

  14. You realize Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who wants to legalize same sex marriage, don't you?

    Posted by: Matt | Dec 24, 2011 6:33:03 PM

  15. This stuff is, frankly, unforgivable. It was called The Ron Paul Newsletter. It was unambiguously presented as Ron Paul's views. You'd think Ron Paul would take full responsibility for The Ron Paul Newsletter.

    "But I didn't personally write it" is a ridiculous (and not necessarily credible) excuse. And if he claims he didn't read what went into The Ron Paul Newsletter, that tells me he's crazy (if he's not being dishonest): You'd think if you were Ron Paul you'd make sure you had full editorial control -- certainly reading and approving every word, before publication -- of The Ron Paul Newsletter.

    His ardent, frenzied-up, often spamming-prone supporters, who, say, come here and try to make all manner of crazy excuses, or try to intimidate critics, remind me of Scientologists. I think they've lost some capacity for objective, clear, rational thinking and judgment. Both groups have god-like, ideological gurus that are perceived by adherents as incapable of doing anything wrong (much less really, really wrong).

    Posted by: Yonder | Dec 24, 2011 6:48:30 PM

  16. Whether he wrote them or not, they have his name on them. His using the defense of I've never read them is, to me, reprehensible. If he were to be elected President, he will be responsible for his administration. What kind of oversight does he demonstrate over the people producing work in his name?

    Granted, these newsletters are very old now. And his administrative abilities may or may not have improved.

    I'm originally from Ron Paul's district, lived 7 miles away from his town of Lake Jackson. The kind of attitude and society which produces such commentary was extremely prevalent in that area during that time. Still is in a lot of it. This was exactly why I left as soon as I graduated High School - 20 years ago.

    Posted by: Marcus | Dec 24, 2011 6:58:57 PM

  17. Your either stupid or self loathing. Dr. Paul would liberate your kind and all minorities from being considered lesser by law... I definitely don't endorse you being gay, but sure as hell endorse the idea that u have the right to be gay. Which is one small reason I am voting for this man while not giving an ounce of credit to your damn lies! Really what your doing here is very counter productive for your kind.

    Posted by: d | Dec 24, 2011 7:19:26 PM

  18. @LUCKYLINDEN. Thanks for a great post. You certainly clarified the issue and I commend you. You should send it in to Andrew Sullivan, but I doubt he'd have the balls to post it.

    Posted by: ian | Dec 24, 2011 7:20:03 PM

  19. Stop. The man isn't going to win squat. Don't waste your time/effort.

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Dec 24, 2011 7:20:16 PM

  20. Here's the clip from Bruno where Ron Paul runs out of the bedroom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ

    Posted by: Jim | Dec 24, 2011 7:27:19 PM

  21. andy is at it again. posting things that are arguably inaccurate just to start a firestorm of comments and bringing in a whole lot of viewership to his website in the mean time.

    ron paul has taken responsibility for them. he has even said that since his name was on the newsletters, he is morally responsible for them. so people saying he should tak responsibility should realize he has.

    he said that he disavows them however, and that many of the quotes that have been hand selected by individuals to stir up controversy were not written by him. many, many politicians and businesspeople have newsletters that ghostwriters write for, but is published under their own names. that is a common practice in the field.

    plus, i'm a 30's something out gay man, with parents who love me and accept me even though i'm a raging homo :) but, when i was growing up, my pentecostal pastor would regularly preach that homosexuals are going to hell, that they are a perversion, that God will punish our nation by accepting them, and more. He feels completely different than that now, and completely disavows everything he used to preach. I don't hate him for it. In reality, I appreciate him more for it!

    Ron Paul, whether he said these things then or not, and whether he believed these things back then or not, does not now. He has campaigned on the fact that the War on Drugs and the criminal justice system in this country greatly discriminates against minorities. He has said, repeatedly, that gay men and women should be able to enter into marriage with whomever they wish. He has said that every individual is equal, and deserves the same rights and respect. This is far different than the newsletters, whether he wrote them or not

    Besides, Obama was a member of one of a church for years and years that was ran by a hideously racist man. His attendance, and support, and promotion of that church could be analogized to Ron Paul's newsletter. Obama disavowed the pastor's statements and his opinions, and we moved past it. Of course, when it's a Republican, we can't do the same thing.

    Ron Paul is not a racist. He is not a bigot. He does not hate gays. Trying to stir up controversy by claiming he does is purely a smear campaign.

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 7:36:33 PM

  22. my pentecostal preacher father, that is

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 7:40:33 PM

  23. It really looks to me as if most of the posters on this forum are actually just looking for a reason to hate Ron Paul. I don't really care one way or the other if he wins or not because I am Australian but most of the comments here seem to be looking for a reason for Ron Paul to be homophobic. After reading this article and these posts I have spent some time looking into Ron Paul and can't actually find anything bad on the guy, apart from these weird newsletters, that he may or may not have written. From what I can see, he is for equal rights for everyone, which would logically mean that he cannot support specific laws or regulations that focus on one particular group. I guess that if you are hoping for some extra privileges for your particular group, then you may construe that as being prejudice. As for the newsletters themselves, they are basically indefenceable, if they were written by Ron Paul, or he had any control over them at all, then it is certainly worrying. The problem that I have is that I cannot find any other examples anywhere, that show him to be racist or homophobic in any way. If I could find just one other example, any other example, then I would be more inclined to believe that he is prejudice, but I cannot. I can find 100's of videos of him speaking for issues that support minority's and support equal rights for all though.
    At the end of the day, it makes no difference to me at all, but considering that I have a number of gay friends, aboriginal friends and my partner is Chinese, I think that Ron Paul seems like a decent guy, from what I have read (apart from these newsletters of course). I really hope that the posters in these comments are not simply looking for another reason to believe that the world is against them and that everyone who is not gay must hate them. I know that your country does not really support you, but unless you take a positive attitude to this fight instead of instantly having a negative one, you will never get anywhere.

    P.S @luckylindon, I agree with most of your post, the only problem I see is that I don't think that Ron Paul was actually in politics at the time these newsletters were released, so it may be more understandable for him not to be reading them all. If he was in politics at the time, then yes he should be going over everything that comes from his organization with a fine toothed comb. But if he wasn't then he probably had more important things to do, like delivering babies.

    Posted by: Al | Dec 24, 2011 8:03:22 PM

  24. its a newsletter mass produced by others just like the liddy letter rush letter and the 100 others that popped up in the 90's that sucked out the exspendable money of millions of people wanting to be different then everyone else on the block.

    Posted by: sterling | Dec 24, 2011 8:06:24 PM

  25. Sorry for my one huge paragraph above, I'm using my phone and it's hard to edit properly.

    Posted by: Al | Dec 24, 2011 8:07:04 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

Post a comment


« «Rossville Christian Academy: Students To Be Militantly Heterosexual In Thought, Word, And Deed« «