Ron Paul: "Homophobe?"

The "cosmopolitan" wing of the Libertarian Party accuses Ron Paul of being "anti-gay." I have admitted to being a "homophobic" "bigot," and I find Ron Paul too "gay-friendly." Perhaps an analysis of a recent article in the pro-homosexual Advocate will help sort out the issues.

January 04, 2008 "Bigoted" "Homophobic" Response


Gay Libertarians face off over Ron Paul’s idealism and what it means in the fight for gay rights.  
By John Barclay By Kevin Craig
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul aggressively opposes the Iraq war, the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, and numerous actions of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, many say he feels the same way about gay rights. The phrase "gay rights" has already been used twice in that article. What are "gay rights?"

We might ask first, what are "rights?" The Declaration of Independence says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration also speaks of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," by which America's Founders meant the Bible. Nobody is endowed by their Creator with a "right" to violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." But those same laws do not entitle me, e.g., to lock up a glutton in my basement with a psychopath, even if gluttony is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

The sine qua non of Libertarianism is the belief that nobody -- not even "the government" -- has a right to initiate force against anyone else. From the perspective of civil government, it would appear that there is a "right to gluttony" (if "rights" are defined simply as something the government cannot punish) since the glutton does not initiate force against anyone else. Similarly, a government might decide to refuse to initiate force against those convicted of engaging in homosexual acts, but this does not mean that God has endowed anyone with a "right" to practice homosexual acts.

Paul is a Libertarian-leaning Texas congressman who has recently party-crashed the neoconservative movement from within the GOP. An aggressive antiestablishment speaker who is frequently cited as the most Internet-savvy candidate, Paul has gained a proactive fan base that has made him a leader in Web searches, YouTube views, and many Republican straw polls. His grassroots supporters, many of them young technology aficionados, have launched what has become known as the “Ron Paul revolution” -- and they helped him pull in $6 million on December 16, the largest fund-raising day for any presidential candidate in U.S. history.
Paul’s cult-like following is largely the result of his proximity to Libertarian and Constitutionalist politics. He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, winning little media attention but plenty of Libertarian street cred. As a GOP congressman, Paul has earned the nickname Dr. No because of his career as an obstetrician and his refusal to vote for anything not specifically sanctioned by the Constitution -- including the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Often portrayed as a Libertarian in Republican disguise, he still upholds the majority of the Libertarian platform and has the support of many party members.
“Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions,” reads the Libertarian website. “Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another. In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.” If I make the "personal decision" to kill my neighbor, many libertarians believe the government has a right to interfere. If I make the "personal decision" to molest my children or beat my wife, many libertarians believe the government has a right to interfere. This is because of the line, "as long as they do no harm to another." Most libertarians believe that molesting children "harms" the children, even if some "intergenerational sex" advocates claim children need and can consent to sexual acts with adults. The act itself is deemed to be so repugnant to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" that the government will not allow anyone to "consent" to it. Even if the facts show that the child said "Please do that again!" the law will not allow a jury (or other "fact-finder") to find "consent."

Is Mr. Smith (an adult male) "harmed" if Mr. Jones (an adult male) performs a sex act on/with Smith? Can Jones say Smith consented? This legal question is ultimately decided by religion.

Does this desired freedom extend to gays? Since its inception, the party has had a strong LGBT caucus and several LGBT activist groups. Although Paul is fervently laissez-faire and would be delighted to do away with the vast majority of government departments and programs, the issue of gay rights is where he parts company with most of his Libertarian brethren. Does Ron Paul part company with "most" libertarians? or only "some?" Have there been any polls taken on this question?
Although Paul has defended the right of gays to serve in the military and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he has praised the federal Defense of Marriage Act, voted against funds to assist gay couples in adopting children in the District of Columbia, and defended “don’t ask, don’t tell.” To many observers, the latter positions are the definition of anti-Libertarianism. (He could not vote for DOMA because he was not in Congress at the time, but he has said he would have voted for it.) To be libertarian, according to the statement at left, is to confiscate money from some people by force and give it to a homosexual couple who intends to deprive a child of heterosexual parents.

This is a silly thing to say.

Paul has also come under recent scrutiny for receiving endorsements and donations from bigots such as Don Black, proprietor of the white supremacist online forum Stormfront. The Anti-Defamation League has called on Paul to distance himself from hate groups. "If he doesn't do that, then we will decide what we're going to say publicly about it," Steven Freeman, the ADL's assistant director of civil rights, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Paul weakly countered this criticism by pointing out that he doesn’t screen his 57,000 daily donations, and he said he would keep Black's $500 donation because Black would have less money to spend on his hate-related activities. I am not accepting any monetary contributions to my campaign, but if I did, I would feel best about taking money away from groups with which I disagreed.
Paul’s voting record is likewise dubious. “Paul always calls himself a conservative. He never calls himself a Libertarian -- and he is telling the truth,” says Libertarian presidential hopeful George Phillies (the party will choose its candidate at its national convention in May). “The main threat of his platform is not that it will be enacted -- he is in sixth place in the polls. The main threat is that people will confuse his platform with decent Libertarian stands. Real Libertarians abhor homophobic bigotry -- 'don't ask, don't tell,' blocking gay marriage, blocking gay adoptions.” To say that Ron Paul is asserting that he is NOT a libertarian when he tells non-libertarians (e.g., conservatives) that he can represent their viewpoint better than those who falsely self-identify themselves with their group, is a logical fallacy. It is the claim that if Ron Paul said "I am a libertarian," he would be lying.

I find it difficult to believe that the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President never called himself a Libertarian. I find it reasonable for a Republican congressman not to confuse people by appearing to say he is a member of a different political Party. He certainly never denies that he is a libertarian [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [especially 5 - follow link at bottom of page]

The insinuation is clear: Ron Paul is not a "decent" libertarian, but a "homophobic bigot." With "libertarian" friends like these, who needs neo-con enemies?

“The LP offers an uncompromising stance on equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity -- with sexual rights in the Libertarian platform for more than three decades,” says Rob Power, who chairs Outright Libertarians, a gay group within the party, and supports Phillies's candidacy. “Paul’s ideology is socially conservative/traditionalist/federalist. It’s not really Libertarian because it still supports government control over individual lives -- merely at the state, not federal, level. Paul is likable and principled, but his principles are biblical, not Libertarian or even Constitutionalist, because he ignores the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.” As a candidate who self-consciously tries to have a "Biblical" platform, I'm not sure Ron Paul is all that "Biblical."

I don't get the feeling that Ron Paul wants state anti-sodomy laws.


Why libertarians should repeal the 14th Amendment.

But some still feel Paul’s commitment to freedom is genuine. Eric Duare, a gay Paul supporter and registered Republican who has described the Libertarian Party as “futile” on account of its failure to break through to a mainstream audience, defends Paul’s adoption vote, saying it was not a vote against adoptions by gays but a vote against federal funds for them. I would "vote against" adoptions by homosexuals, but not if it means initiating force against them.

God has not endowed homosexuals with the right to raise other people's children.
But God has also not endowed the civil government the right to initiate force against the Smiths if they give their children to a homosexual group to be raised (assuming here a distinction between homosexuals and pederasts; while kidnapping is contrary to "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God," it is not if a child is being forcibly removed from a molester).
God has endowed everyone in society with the right to nag, and to create social pressure against homosexuals raising children.

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

“It would bother me if he were taking an antigay, discriminatory stance, but he was not,” Duare says. “Paul has stated that he voted against the bill not because it could affect gays, but because the federal government has no constitutional authority to spend money promoting adoption -- or defaming it either. He said he would have voted against any bill that did this, with or without the ‘related by blood or marriage’ language, and I believe his record bears him out.”
For many Libertarians and their philosophical cousins, the Ron Paul debate is one of purism versus pragmatism. The purists view Paul as an ideologically corrupted Libertarian and believe a vote for him is a vote against civil rights. The pragmatists acknowledge that while Paul slacks off on LGBT issues, he has received far more support than any Libertarian candidate and thus is worth the ideological negotiation. The idea is to let Paul secure Libertarian ideals in the mainstream’s consciousness and to work out the details later. What is the unspoken agenda of the "purists?" Is it the initiation of force against those who believe homosexuality is an abomination and contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?" How can any government force or compulsion against "homophobic bigots" (such as every single person who signed the Constitution) ever be called "pure libertarianism?"

What are these "details" that would be worked out against "bigots" if a "pure" libertarian were elected by unwitting "bigots?"

Rocco Fama, vice president of the New York State chapter of Stonewall Libertarians, another gay group, has yet to decide if he will endorse Paul. He says he doesn’t agree with Paul’s gay adoption vote but believes Paul would never vote to ban adoptions by gays nationwide. Like many Libertarians, Fama applauds the progress Paul has made in bringing several issues to the masses, even though he doesn't agree with all of Paul's platform. “As a Republican, Ron Paul brings Libertarian ideas to a platform that LP candidates have no access to,” Fama says.  
Yet many still refuse to compromise gay rights.  
“I condemn his stands on the issue,” says Phillies, “They are anti-Libertarian to the core.” Surely "anti-Libertarian to the core” is an exaggeration.

Additional Resources