Thursday, December 29, 2011

Would President Ron Paul take issue with a state passing legislation making it legal to execute its LGBT population? (Hey, at least they'd be willing to let bygones be bygones and only execute the actively gay.)

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa | TPM2012:




While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State. 

“Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

For every homicidal lunatic that support some Republican, I'm sure there's some nutter that supports a Democrat. Well, maybe it's a ratio of something like 10:1 but my point is you can't blame the candidate for everything every supporter says or does. That said, you can look at how closely the candidate associates with his most demented supporters, how aggressively he courts their support, and whether or not he takes issue with any of their extremist positions.

Dan Savage doesn't seem to have a problem with Ron Paul's attitudes towards gays, apparently concluding Paul's hatred of government trumps his hatred of homosexuals in any decision-making process, therefore homosexuals would be safe with President Paul not having problem with church-state fundies wanting to pass state laws making it legal to burn them at the stake, because at least he wouldn't order it from the White House.

Savage is probably correct to fear Paul less than, say, Rick Santorum. However, Paul's old newsletters appeal to some pretty sick fucks (if you think Paul wasn't aware of -- and writing some of -- that shit, you're a sucker) and maybe we'd all be safer with a President who wasn't a favorite of the Bircher/KKK crowd?


3 comments:

  1. I've come to see "states rights" as the rallying cry of every possible form of bigotry and prejudice. Another way of saying "states rights" is "Divide and conquer." Confederacy is, always has been, and I suspect always will be nothing more than a form regional exploitation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can someone remind me WHY this guy is supposed to be such a hip libertarian?

    The more I hear about him, the more he sounds like a horrible, hateful guy wanting to protect the property and power of the super-rich and calling it "freedom"...

    What a screwed-up philosophy masquerading as freedom...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul was right about one big thing (don't waste billions of dollars invading other countries on false pretenses) and I think that bought him credibility from folks that would otherwise dismiss him as a racist, homophobic crank.

    Which raises the obvious question, how fucking retarded are bulk of our public officials when even a racist, homophobic crank has an easier time than they do telling right from wrong on one of the most important issues of the last decade?!

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...