Did Ron Paul turn down a debate invitation?

[Perpetual]

So according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6916323.stm

theres going to be a debate exclusively about gay rights. They said, in the article:

"Although candidates from both parties were invited, only the Democrats responded positively, the HRC says, so a corresponding event will not be staged for their Republican counterparts."

Does that mean Ron Paul turned down their invitation? I'll be very disappointed with him if he did. People are smearing him as anti-gay, when really he could WIN gay votes by talking about his stance on gays in the military, or letting states choose to offer gay marriage. . .

Seriously, if RP declined because he's philosophically against gays. . . that will devastate me. I thought he was about freedom and life, not posturing and cliques. Even if he makes a fool of himself there, at least he went and got his name out. He should go. If right wing voters choose not to vote for him because he attended a gay rights debate, then they didn't understand his ideas in the first place.

Edit: Oh, psh, nevermind, the debate is tonight.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It would be disappointing due to the fact that Ron Paul believes in free associations among individuals. He would give everyone a new way to think of marriage. Marriage should not be regulated by government. Period.

[Shink]

Perhaps the candidates invited did not include him? Not unthinkable, after the Failor debacle and Gravel not being included in the last televised debate.

[libertarianguy]

mph

[JosephTheLibertarian]

maybe republicans didn't decide to go because they don't pander to minorities?

at least that's the case with ron...

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

[Syren123]

Wow. You just talked yourself right into a panic attack. You don't know if Ron Paul even GOT an invitation let alone declined one, and you then walked right into the assumption that he has now changed his up til now unchanging position that gays are not a separate group and therefore don't need special 'rights.' There is no indication he has changed his position whatsoever from anywhere.

Calm down there pardner.

[FreedomLover]

iowa straw poll > gay only debate with pandering dems already targeting this bloc

anyway, no one was going to show up either way. Not a big constituency.

[libertarianguy]

mph

[Bloody Holly]

So according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6916323.stm

theres going to be a debate exclusively about gay rights. They said, in the article:

"Although candidates from both parties were invited, only the Democrats responded positively, the HRC says, so a corresponding event will not be staged for their Republican counterparts."

Does that mean Ron Paul turned down their invitation? I'll be very disappointed with him if he did. People are smearing him as anti-gay, when really he could WIN gay votes by talking about his stance on gays in the military, or letting states choose to offer gay marriage. . .

Seriously, if RP declined because he's philosophically against gays. . . that will devastate me. I thought he was about freedom and life, not posturing and cliques. Even if he makes a fool of himself there, at least he went and got his name out. He should go. If right wing voters choose not to vote for him because he attended a gay rights debate, then they didn't understand his ideas in the first place.

Edit: Oh, psh, nevermind, the debate is tonight.


I love how people think you are anti-gay if you aren't pandering to just their interests. It's annoying as fuck if you think about it.
If you want to know, Ron Paul doesn't care if you are gay or straight. He also doesn't think you are entitled to special treatment for being gay or straight.

My personal thoughts are shields of protections are being abused because when it comes down to it, there's always going to be the good and bad apples with every form of group. When you give special shields to groups then you leave out those that don't belong and those with special shields can turn around and discriminate against those who aren't protected by a PC shield therefore proving that it's all just a power struggle like most everything else.

[Syren123]

well, his view would certainly be well received. But it's so elegantly simple that there'd be nothing else to say and he'd have wasted his valuable time. Let hillary and company work out all the details of their complex 'minority-rights' legislation


LOL! Good one!

[ctb619]

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

Ron Paul supports gay marriage?

[Lord Xar]

Well, to me - he probably refused because "gays" are a group and why only talk about gays when its about invidividuals, not groups..

I mean, all this pandering is crazy.

[Perpetual]

Well I called and left a message with someone there at the HRC, maybe I'll hear back, but probably not until tomorrow.

I guess if he chose to talk at the Iowa state fair instead of be at the debate. . . thats alright. . .

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul supports gay marriage?

well.. "free associations" it looks to me that he doesn't want government to regulate marriage.

This would be a libertarian stance

[Shink]

Actually, it would have been nice if Ron Paul could have gone, because I hear Iowa City has a good amount of gays there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul's sensible, scholarly stances brought over a decent amount of them to the correct candidate, rather than the pandering Emo Dems. That's what I'm calling them from now on, "Emo."

Edit: so you guys know, the OP has been amended, the debate is tonight, hence the reason he wouldn't show up. Too busy in Iowa.

[ctb619]

well.. "free associations" it looks to me that he doesn't want government to regulate marriage.

I follow you...thanks

[libertarianguy]

mph

[ThePieSwindler]

lol noobs debate is tonight. Not to be un-PC about this, but i have a feeling this was scheduled tonight WHEN THEY KNEW REPUBLICANS WOULD BE IN IOWA CAMPAIGNING just to make them look bad, similar to the NAACP event - i contactd the campaign about it [the naacp debate] back when it happened and they couldn't make it because the invitiation was last minute and they were already booked for google. They actually said if they received another invite for another event when they were not busy, they would be happy to attend an NAACP event.


I have a feeling the same shit here is going on, with Iowa trumping this invite.

[Paul-O-Holic]

Paul doesn't believe in gay rights. He believes in the rights of individuals.

There would be nothing to debate. At Google, when asked about protecting the rights of minorities, he said that the "individual is the only true minority." That's pretty much all there is to say about gay rights.

[Bradley in DC]

Ron Paul supports gay marriage?

No, that's not quite right. While he thinks government's role in enforcing contracts would extend to civil arrangements (domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc.) at the state level, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act for federal purposes (I suspect mostly to limit welfare payments, honestly) but opposes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage (which is a state and civil society issue) at the federal level.

[LibertyEagle]

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

I think you are misrepresenting him here. Have you looked at the bills he has entered about this?

[Syren123]

Paul doesn't believe in gay rights. He believes in the rights of individuals.

There would be nothing to debate. At Google, when asked about protecting the rights of minorities, he said that the "individual is the only true minority." That's pretty much all there is to say about gay rights.


OMG I LOVE THAT!!

[Bloody Holly]

Well, to me - he probably refused because "gays" are a group and why only talk about gays when its about invidividuals, not groups..

I mean, all this pandering is crazy.

agreed. I don't give a rats ass if you are gay or straight. That's your business and if I don't like you or I do like you, it's not because you are gay or straight or because of the color of your skin, it's because you are probably something I don't like on the inside.

Sometimes I wonder if people are more scared of that idea so that is when they accuse you of hating what they are on the outside.

People all have differences. Tolerance isn't about kissing ass and deeming one group great and tearing down individuals. It's about embracing others differences, knowing they exist and co-existing but I'm really fed up of the self-righteous types that can't look in the mirror to see that they are acting just as high and mighty as those they detest.

Self righteousness is a mindset, not a religion.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, that's not quite right. While he thinks government's role in enforcing contracts would extend to civil arrangements (domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc.) at the state level, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act for federal purposes (I suspect mostly to limit welfare payments, honestly) but opposes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage (which is a state and civil society issue) at the federal level.

yup.. he voted against the federal ban of same sex marriage

[DeadheadForPaul]

Straw Poll > Gay debate for sure

As for Dr. Paul's position on gay marriage, he has one that no one can disagree with really. I've gotten pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage people to both agree with it. By taking the government out of a contract/agreement between two consenting adults, you allow for homosexuals to have equal rights because they are on the same legal level. At the same time, you don't offend Christians/other theists because you separate a contract from the religious aspect.

Marriage should never be regulated by government because it is a religious tradition. Really, what we are talking about are partnerships/civil unions for all Americans. Then the religious individuals can make it a religious marriage through their own private churches and therefore protect the sanctity of their own religious ceremonies

I've sold a strict Catholic on this as well as a homosexual friend who wants gay marriage. If you can convince those two people with the same message, you can convince anyone

Ultimately though, Dr. Paul wants to leave it to individual states to decide and that is key

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think you are misrepresenting him here. Have you looked at the bills he has entered about this?

You've misinterpreted me. He doesn't believe government should regulate marriage. He would probably leave it up to the states anyway and continue to vote against federal bans on same sex marriage and federal legislation for same sex marriage or civil unions

[Perpetual]

Well, to me - he probably refused because "gays" are a group and why only talk about gays when its about invidividuals, not groups..

I mean, all this pandering is crazy.

Oh come on. Going out of your way to explain your stance to a group of people who care about your stance on their issues makes sense. He's already dealing with a black mark because hes republican, so I think its perfectly acceptable for him to target people who would otherwise think he's a bigot (internet trolls arent helping dispel that idea either)

Its not pandering if you're just telling the group "I'll treat you like everyone else". It needs to be done if they'd otherwise assume you'd specifically discriminate against them.

[Paul-O-Holic]

How about we let Ron Paul speak for himself:

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I just think it'd be cool if he participates in everything because he can definitely answer any questions.. uniquely

[Bloody Holly]

Oh come on. Going out of your way to explain your stance to a group of people who care about your stance on their issues makes sense. He's already dealing with a black mark because hes republican, so I think its perfectly acceptable for him to target people who would otherwise think he's a bigot (internet trolls arent helping dispel that idea either)

Its not pandering if you're just telling the group "I'll treat you like everyone else". It needs to be done if they'd otherwise assume you'd specifically discriminate against them.

you sound like a group thinker because I've only heard the line "black mark because he's a republican" by group thinkers.

[Perpetual]

you sound like a group thinker because I've only heard the line "black mark because he's a republican" by group thinkers.

Im saying theres tens of millions of voters out there that won't vote for him simply because he's republican. If you want to call them group thinkers, I won't be disagreeing.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I have found that telling people the following tends to work wonders. If I was in Iowa, I'd say the following: "What works in New York may not work in Iowa. Dr. Paul believes the citizens of Iowa know what is best for Iowa. He doesnt believe a bunch of career politicians in Washington DC know what is best for Iowa"

People like feeling empowered and that gives them actual power over the things going on in their lives.

[Bloody Holly]

Im saying theres tens of millions of voters out there that won't vote for him simply because he's republican. If you want to call them group thinkers, I won't be disagreeing.

Okay, I see what you are doing now. Writing from their point of view. Sorry :)

Well there are people that vote based on fake socialist stunts. You can't win them over.

Ron Paul's platform isn't about socialism. It's about getting America's pulse back. If socialism is a higher priority than getting out of Iraq, it's a higher priority than getting rid of the patriot act, it's higher priority than putting the constitution to use then sorry but I think we need to get our priorities straight. Candidates that focus on socialism like Hillary put on a fake act to earn her votes, she even puts on a fake accent. What does that say about politicians and their socialism?

You can ask them about their priorities.

There are so many things that should not be reliant on the White House and big government isn't working well because it functions best when it's smaller and allows the states decide. Everything is done half-assed because there is just too much work and control resting on the shoulders of big govt and most of the time they don't really give a damn about socialism and welfare. It's first implemented to make people shut up and then maybe 20 years later finally gets a revampment.

For everyone that complains about constitutional rights, it sure is strange to see them turn the other cheek and not respect that others have those same rights too.

Ron Paul is the only one who stands for freedom. If we keep electing those that go into office and throw in yet another bill to give the government more control, we're going to have nothing left. No more freedom. This has been into phasing effect for quite some time and this is our chance to quit screwing it up.

If you read some of the democratic candidates priorities, you might be surprised.

Obama= war war and more war (seriously)

Clinton= lies lies and more lies

Edwards= actually wtf does he stand for?


Clinton, Edwards, Obama... Stands for CEO. Coincidence?? I think not!

Even though the dems talk a good convincing socialist talk, handing everything to one groups special interest is the furthest from their agenda no matter how much they lie.

[Perry]

Well...Ron could go but who would he debate with? None of the other republicans would accept the debate.