SPOT ON your comment Ken! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Next time see if you can work in Seperate but Equal while you are at it 🙂

I think Ken’s questions above are very telling. Let’s add something to that. Rick Santorum believes the Federal Government should outlaw birth control. I’m assuming he means ‘artificial birth control’, which may well include sterilization, the largest birth control method used by middle and upper class whites.

Will Evangelicals be on-board with this legislation? Which ones, when and how? You can only push people so far, until their own ox is gored, then comes the ah-ha moment. When it’s someone else’s behavior, not mine, I can be as glib and judgmental, and get on a band wagon of … “throw out all the ‘bad’ guys” … til I realize I’m one of the bad guys, according to someone else’s code of ethics.

Do you believe he will actively oppose gay rights or simply ignore the issue?

What do you believe Paul would (and could) do about gay rights if elected?”

StraightGrandmother = I think it will depend on whom he surrounds himself with.

Patrocles:

Sincerely, a gay-friendly dictatorship would serve gays’ interests best (like all other minorities); so gays have to consider if it’s worth the risk.

Patrocles, a far-right, Evangelical … code for Dominionism or Theonomy … theocracy would certainly serve this ideologies interest; so, sincerely, a fundamentalist theocracy has to consider if it’s worth the risk.

Are you on-board with this statement? Or, are you of the opinion that Iowa Evangelicals are not a minority in there extreme views?

I, again, recommend to you the Frank Schaeffer video on BookTV, Sex, Mom and God. I was amazed when Mr. Schaeffer said groups like this have a deep hatred for the United States and its government. Upon reflection, I think he’s right.

Secondly, libertarianism doesn’t support a top-down system, where the federal government can impose its values on anyone.

There’s a possible conflict of ideas. But you have the same conflict in any other political philosophy which supports a particular ethics and as well a democratic procedure (risking that the procedure results in something which doesn’t conform with your ethics).

The only way to avoid this at all is to abolish democratic procedure. (You can’t use the term “human rights” to circumvent democratic procedure, because then there’s the next question: Who by what procedure defines what’s “human rights”.) Of course you can shape democratic procedure so that it’s more gay-friendly. But is that really a problem of federal government vs. states?

Sincerely, a gay-friendly dictatorship would serve gays’ interests best (like all other minorities); so gays have to consider if it’s worth the risk.

And now this? And all that before? Paul is trying to walk a libertarian tightrope concerning gays and lesbians and yet realizes a small but significant part of his Republican electorate find those libertarian view reprehensible. He can’t win!

Just my 2 cents,

Dave

Ken said:

I think a lot of people are looking at this election the wrong way.

I couldn’t agree more, Ken, with your statement. I’d add a bit about how the media is driven to fill 24/7 ad time; and wants any meaningful content, however miniscule, to be divisive … on purpose, and for a purpose. Keep it seconds only, keep it wedge-driven, pit one community against another … on purpose, and for a purpose. So, we respond, Pavlovian style, to the tinkling bell, the buzzer.

Our written media is not much better, overall. And, quite frankly, how many people take the time to read more than a paragraph or two on serious, political and social issues? Gone are the days of the Federalist Papers, or the assorted writings opposing the Federalists. Nope, even the one or two paragraphs by a columnist is too long for us. If it doesn’t Tweet, it doesn’t matter.

I repeat again, we get the candidates, we deserve … anywhere on the political spectrum.

But frankly, I think just looking at the candidate’s stance on one issue is a bit foolish, esp. since it is unlikely there will be any further supreme court appointments in the next 4 years (were a president’s stance on such issues could have the most lasting impact).

However, since everyone here wants to talk about Paul’s stance on gay rights, lets address that. Lets assume Paul really isn’t in favor of gay rights (despite his voting record). What do you believe he would do about gay rights if elected?

Do you believe he will actively oppose gay rights or simply ignore the issue?

What do you believe Paul would (and could) do about gay rights if elected?