reply to post by negativenihil
Face it, Ron Paul does not feel homosexuals should be afforded the same freedom and liberty he preaches to his base.
Now now, a little accuracy would be nice. Paul preached nothing to his base that is not acknowledged here - if he doesn't see a constitutional
justification for the federal government to be involved in or regulating something, then he firmly applies the 9th and 10th amendments - it is the
responsibility of the people or the states to manage.
And as the states are made up of the people, then the people should be able to direct their state governments to handle things accordingly.
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Also to my friend Benevolent Heretic - Paul's personal view is that as long as we aren't intruding on anyone else's rights or liberties, than
ALL levels of government should stay out of these matters one way or the other (be it marriage, sex, drugs, etc.) - but according to the supreme law
of this country, the states can legislate on such IF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES ALLOW THEM TO.
It's up to *us* to get involved and craft things the way we want. Everyone always wants to separate the government from the people, but one is
composed of the other, regardless of which level of government we're talking about. If we allow it to do things it shouldn't or that we disagree
with, it's either because we in too great a share have become lazy and accepting of such, or that a sufficient majority of the population disagrees
with your stance - welcome to democracy, in that case.
And once again, I do have to say that offering Paul up over a matter such as "not protecting everyone's rights at the federal level" is in my view a
tragically shortsighted opinion, given all the other federal offenses and intrusions we apparently make peace with to stand on such, as well as
assuming other options offer any significantly better choice - as well as failing to consider that however unlikely, federal solutions to problems can
also eventually swing the other way and LIMIT options for everyone, as well.
If you see enough discontent and instability in public opinion and faith of government grow, it is indeed possible, unlikely or no, that you could see
federal amendments on gay marriage, abortion, etc.
Tired for sounding like a broken record, but we must look at NET acceptances and NET outcomes - and it seems to me like we compromise entirely too
much, rely on others entirely too much, and are happy to yield entirely too much to prevent some outside possibilities
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)