And as I noted before (and you didn't port over), your "distinction" is without a difference.
If I am personally opposed to torture, but believe that the Constitution authorizes the president to torture illegal combatants at Guantanamo, then I am pro-torture at a policy level. Personal "feelings" don't matter -- only policy positions do. Outright, and most other serious political organizations, are in the business of assessing policy positions, not emotional stances. The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's personal policy beliefs place the government of the state of Texas (or wherever you live) and its "local standards" as superior to your private decisions when push comes to shove, based on his bizarre ignore-the-14th-amendment "constitutionalism." I am not going to get into yet another 360 degree wankfest over this, only to have you repeat the same arguments (without having the courtesy of posting my replies). Suffice to say that ALL of the Libertarian Party candidates who answered our survey are opposed to the use of "states' rights" arguments to overrule the constitutional rights of LGBTQ parents and LGBTQ military personnel. In other words, they believe, at a policy level, that a right to privacy and a right to "sodomy" exist in the Constitution. Whereas Ron Paul's "states rights" policy position is that states do have the right to overrule LGBTQ rights, and that while he may or may not be personally opposed to that, there is no right to privacy nor "sodomy" in the Constitution. Therein lies the policy rub. A President Smith, Kubby, Phillies, Root, Milnes, or Link will support the striking down of anti-gay parenting laws on a federal level as violations of the 14th Amendment. A President Paul will fight to the death to preserve them from ever seeing a federal court ruling -- to the point of attempting legislation on the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling to instruct federal courts and the USSC to never again rule on issues of sexuality or privacy. Again, it's all about policy. A President Ron Paul who *may* oppose sodomy laws personally, but fight to the death to protect a state's "right" to impose them on its populace, simply isn't going to get a good score -- and at a practical level, believes that state government, not individuals, are the final arbiters of the limits of privacy and the sexual activities of consenting adults. Cheers, Brian ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 11:54:47 AM Subject: RE: [marketliberal] Re: Ron Paul a "homophobic bigot"? Message Thomas L. Knapp wrote: BH to BM) The fact remains that you cannot produce a single quote from Paul saying that he "believes that government -- not individuals -- should be the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting adults." (BH RP) "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights -- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." (RP TK) Paul does not object to this -- to the contrary, he proclaims it. From that, it cannot be construed in any other way than that he believes that yes, the government (at the state, rather than federal, level) should be the final arbiter of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting adults. (TK As I told Miller: You continue to conflate two distinct things: 1) Paul's belief that as a matter of jurisprudential fact under our system of government, states have the power to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults, and 2) Paul's alleged belief that states should use that power to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults. What Paul believes is that as a matter of jurisprudential fact under our system of government, states have the power to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults. Statements of facts about the world are positive and not normative, and so can't be characterized as libertarian or not libertarian. You cannot quote Paul saying that under an ideal system of government, states should have the power to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults. There's nothing unlibertarian about judging that a strictly federalist interpretation of the existing Constitution is the position most likely to maximize liberty in America. Yeah, centralizing authority in the federal government has never led to loss of liberties in America. What a silly thing for a libertarian to worry about. His construction above clearly indicates a presumption that sodomy laws are ridiculous. If you've spent more than ten minutes listening to Ron Paul, you'd realize how ridiculous it is to suggest he would say that states should use the power to regulate private consensual conduct that they have under our current federal system of government. You've quoted precisely nothing to show that Paul believes that states should use the power to regulate private consensual conduct that they have under our current federal system of government. TK) At the level where even Ron Paul believes that the federal government has a role -- policy within the armed forces, e.g. "don't ask don't tell" -- Paul tried to dodge the question in debate with bromides about disorderly conduct and individual vs. group rights, but in fact affirmed his support of that policy, a policy of direct discrimination, by the federal government, solely on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation. (TK That's not accurate. I quote Ron Paul: RP) So when it comes to the military, I talked about disruptive sexual behavior. And quite frankly, there's probably a lot more heterosexual disruptive behavior in the military than gay disruptive behavior. So I would say everybody should be treated equally, and they shouldn't be discriminated because of that alone. Which means, even though Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't sound so bad, I think the way it's enforced is bad. [...] I met one just the other day in my office who was a translator, and he was kicked out, for no real good reason at all. I would want to change that; I don't support that interpretation. (RP I too was disappointed that Paul didn't raise his hand when Wolf Blitzer asked if any of the candidates "believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military". However, I find only a little to disagree with in his answer: RP) I think the current policy is a decent policy. The problem that we have in dealing with this subject is that we see people as groups, that they derive their rights from belonging in a group. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities, we get our rights from our Creator as individuals. Each individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and understanding of individual rights. (RP Here is what Paul said straight to the faces of the audience at the "values voters" forum: RP) A free country is designed for individuals to deal with the subject of virtue and excellence. Once we defer to the government to get involved in worrying about our own virtue and our excellence and perfect fair economies, it is done at the sacrifice of liberty. If we do that, and sacrifice that liberty, and the job of virtue and excellence is taken over by the government, you can only do that through tyranny. (RP RP) All rights are individual. We don't get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities, it leads us astray. So it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life if they do no harm, you don't try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values, through church values, but you can't do it through legislation, because force doesn't work. (RP Also in that debate, Paul was the only candidate who dared answer No to the question: "Would your administration prosecute all illegal adult pornography, including so-called white collar pornographers?" Thus Paul won't even tell a conservative Christian audience that he will prosecute "illegal pornography"! It remains absurd to claim that Paul "believes that government -- not individuals -- should be the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting adults". __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
