I GOT A LOVE JONES // Paul really is a federalist in the extreme sense,...

Dec 30 11:18 pm

“

Paul really is a federalist in the extreme sense, and he would give states and their courts the power to decide issues such as these. Of course, that also means that those states, like Massachusetts or Iowa or New York, can advance gay equality in a more organic, less top-down way — and Paul, unlike his colleagues, does not back a federal marriage amendment to prevent them. And note that Paul finds anti-sodomy laws “ridiculous”.

Sorry to break the news, but he’s a libertarian. He is the target now of ads run by NOM because of his refusal to sign their heteros-only marriage pledge. He is not for marriage equality — but the rest of the field are just as bad (as is Obama on the marriage issue alone).

”

Andrew Sullivan, “Why Aren’t The Gays Attacking Paul? Ctd,” The Dish, December 30, 2011

“Sorry to break the news, but he’s a libertarian.”

So what.

This silly idea that adherence to libertarianism excuses support for oppression because libertarians are “ardent” “defenders” of “freedom” needs to end. Ron Paul can repeat all he likes that “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea,” but that doesn’t mean we need to believe him.

Sullivan is responding to a reader of Dan Savage’s, who says:

Ron Paul does not advocate for leaving gays alone. He simply advocates for the states to be able to oppress them instead of Washington. Take, for example, this 2003 article. Paul decries the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v Texas decision that eliminated state sodomy laws …

Essentially, Paul has no interest in leaving anybody alone. He only wants to get rid of one government scared into submission by oppressive douchebags and replace it with 50 governments scared into submission by oppressive douchebags.

Dan Savage’s reader is right. Ron Paul might think anti-sodomy laws are “ridiculous,” but he still thinks it’s perfectly legitimate for the citizens of the state of Texas to take a vote on how gay folks can have sex with each other.

Government is not always the opposite of liberty. Someone who genuinely supported individual freedom would side with the federal government in getting a state government out of a gay Texan’s bedroom. A libertarian like Ron Paul would apparently throw up his hands and tell the gay Texan to use the democratic process to try to convince his fellow citizens not to throw him in jail for having sex.

Libertarians are not interested in freedom, no matter how loudly or how often they say they are.

(via screwrocknroll)

I GOT A LOVE JONES

Following: