A little from column A, a little from column B: neruda33: A little from column A, a little from column B: neruda33: A...
A little from column A, a little from column B: Ron Paul - Not quite a friend to homosexuals “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” -H.R.7955 ”Family Protection Act” (1980) Ron Paul was the one and only sponsor of this bill. I’ve heard a lot of people commending him recently for his supposed view that associations between two individuals, whether gay or straight, are nobody’s business (and especially not the government’s). This bill seems to tell a different story. It explicitly bans federal funding to any organization that presents homosexuality as acceptable. Not only does this demonstrate extreme hostility towards lgbtq individuals, but it specifically picks out and discriminates against any and all organizations trying to help those individuals. Full text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m& All you need to know is “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds” and you’ll see why he wanted the bill. —————————————————————————————— Is that really an acceptable defense? Yes, he is against public spending, but this bill is not about public spending. Just look to the title; it’s called the “Family Protection Act”. Here’s a bit of info that might come in handy later on, whenever politicians talk about “Protecting Families” it usually has very little to do with actually protecting families and much more to do with trying to meddle with lgbtq rights. Also, the bill specifically targets homosexuals. It is one thing to write a bill against federal funding for organizations in general and something entirely different to write a bill against federal funding for organizations that portray homosexuality as “acceptable”. If you look at the section of the bill it becomes very clear that this is not an attack on government spending, but rather on the general acceptability of homosexuality. A government that would adopt such legislation is making a very direct statement that it views homosexuality as unacceptable. It is not the removal of funding that tells us anything about Paul’s character, but rather his specific removal of funding for a group he finds unsavory. Ron Paul has some great ideas, and he offers an interesting perspective on how politics and government could be in this country. It is still important to recognize that his rhetoric here is specifically targeting the lgbtq community through the manipulation of government spending. Yes, it decreases government spending, but that is not its intended goal. It is only the means. Well you have to also look that the bill was introduced 32 years ago. Not like he introduced it last week. Times are different. Paul has evolved. I don’t think he’d be ok with same-sex marriage or hire a gay person as his campaign manager if he were disgusted by gay people. That former staffer was a bitter ex-staffer who was fired for incompetence and then tried to run against Paul for his seat. He’s had it out for Paul since he was fired. ————————————————————— So we have to read his statements with a grain of salt (or perhaps the whole salt-shaker), but that does not necessarily mean he is lying (though probably at least exaggerating). I would like to discount what he says, but once again I have a hard time believing people change so easily. I commend Paul for changing his policies but doubt he really likes lgbtq people deep down. I did not know the staffer had been fired and there had been a political feud, with that in mind I will definitely look at Paul in a friendlier manner. What’s great about libertarianism is just because we may not like something does not mean we are going to pass laws showing our dislike of whatever it. ——————————————————————————————- Unless it’s the government of course. Or a woman’s right to choose. (sorry, couldn’t resist the opportunity for sarcasm, I think I’m getting addicted)
—————————————————————————
True. I can accept that argument to a degree, but as much as I would like it to be true, people don’t change so easily. We still have to hold politicians responsible for their pasts. Its nice to forget and forgive, but sometimes its not the best decision. Also, a former Paul staff member recently mentioned several mildly alarming interactions between Paul and homosexuals in an article (to the point where Paul slapped a gay man’s hand away when he offered it for a handshake). Of course Paul is better than, say, Santorum, but a man who still acts so negatively towards homosexuals, even if his policies don’t currently reflect that, worries me. I know I am expecting more than just about any conservative politician can give, but its an area in which I am very reluctant to make a compromise. I would link you the article but I don’t have it bookmarked, feel free to disregard it as any proof of anything since I can’t give it to you to read for yourself.
