Sunday, October 23, 2011
Ron Paul on wedge issues
As a firm believer in separation of church and state, I do not believe that I should have a say in whether other people should or should not be able to get married. I do not believe that the government should have any say in who should and should not be able to get married, although I do believe that the government, OUR government, should protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. So call it what you want, but I do not want to have the right to prevent certain groups from gaining what other people take for granted- the privileges of civil unions (both gay and conventional unions). Note- I regard all "marriages" as a civil union unless it took place in a religious temple or church, because I believe that marriage is a religious issue, not a political one. This is exactly what Ron Paul is a firm believer of, which you will see in the video above.
Since we are talking about gay marriage, I want to talk briefly about gays in the military. Ron Paul supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell and so do I. Why? Not because we are not compassionate (I actually resent that stigma because most people don't bother to dig deeper into the problem) but because Don't Ask, Don't Tell removes the labeling of humans into gays and non-gays. Yes, be proud of who you are, but do not let one part of your identity define you as a whole person because there is so much more to everyone's story than just their sexual orientation. You can watch Ron Pual talk about gays in the military below:
With regards to abortion- it's simple. Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies throughout his career, and he understands the preciousness of life. He personally does not agree with abortion but he will fight for your liberty and your right to exercise choice. That is what I love about Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With regard to Dr. Paul's views on gay marriage/civil unions, I find them...workable. While I agree with him that the government should not be involved in recognizing marriage at ALL (whether hetero- or homosexual), however, that proposition is clearly not viable in modern society. State-recognized heterosexual marriages will ALWAYS be a reality in America, so it is absolutely reasonable for gays to demand equal recognition, including the word "marriage" if they so choose.
ReplyDeleteI also don't agree, per usual, which his insistence that the issue be left up to the states. Frankly, there are quite a few states which will NEVER liberalize their positions on marriage or civil unions unless federally pressured to do so, and just waiting for them to pull their heads out of the sand is unnacceptably unfair to the homosexual Americans who live within their borders.
Personally, I think he mostly dodged the question about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The end result of the program isn't that gays are able to "not let one part of [their] identity define [them] as a person"...it's that they constantly have to hide a core part of their identity for fear of reprisal, shattering their confidence and feelings of self-worth and harming unit cohesion.
Supporting civil liberties should also extend to allowing people to be as expressive (or not) as they see fit, within the confines of their service to our country. Mandating that they never disclose what for many is a core facet of how they see themselves, and kicking out hundreds of thousands of self-sacrificing men and women when they do otherwise, goes against the principles of liberty in every possible respect.
Finally, a couple words about abortion. Personally, it makes me squeamish at best; for Dr. Paul, having seen the procedure up-close, I can only imagine that it is far worse. But the freedom to choose must extend to those who make choices you find abhorrent, so long as they do not disrupt the stability of one's society.
I support the legality and governmental regulation of abortion because the demand for it will exist so long as there are any unwanted pregnancies; placing it under public purview at least keeps the procedure far safer and more sanitary.
- Kevin Chafe
Fighting for basic rights is something I very much admire about Ron Paul. Being grouped with Republican candidates most of the time by the media is really unfair to him because he has very interesting ideas that I think would appeal to a lot of independents/undecideds, but he just doesn't have that cultish appeal that the other candidates do. A lot of his political views are very detached from his personal religion and while he does voice his opinions, he also voices his opinion the limitation of the government and his distinction between right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where you derived the idea that Ron Paul will fight for women's right to choose, because his campaign site specifically states that: "And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
ReplyDelete* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
The second bullet point will essentially make abortions and some form of contraception (like Plan B) illegal and unavailable, while the first bullet point concludes that while some states, like New York, would attempt to maintain the legality of abortion, not all states would, specifically prohibiting working class women from securing medically safe abortions while middle-upper class women can just buy a plane ticket to the nearest blue state.
Ron Paul is, in effect, an Anti-Choice libertarian, and that's precisely the issue that makes me lose respect for him.