Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and his candidacy for the presidency have reached a point of such popularity amongst conservatives, libertarians and even some liberals that you’d think he was a candidate for canonization as well.
I might have invested my enthusiasm with the senator from Illinois in the last race to the White House, but I was still enthralled by Paul and his book “The Revolution.” Honest is a word I would have used to describe the Texan, a descriptor I don’t often afford to politicians. However, as time passed, I began to notice cracks in the paladin’s armor.
I remember a video on YouTube in which conservative thinker and writer, William F. Buckley, Jr. appeared to thoroughly dismantle Paul’s reasoning for wanting to dismantle the FBI and the CIA.
This is when I started to process Paul through the same kind of political analysis I had scrutinized every other candidate with–an act I don’t believe is often carried out by the fanatical sect of Paul’s supporters.
A second breach of the armor was made after I noticed a little bit of uneasiness with Paul’s support for same-sex marriage. I know Paul has stated he doesn’t have any opposition to same-sex marriage, however, his support is never voiced without this small caveat: “So long as they didn’t ‘impose’ their relationship on anyone else.”
Does Paul really believe gays and lesbians want to impose their relationships on other people? If not, then why make such an admonition, as he does so frequently in his responses?
The second part of his response, in which he would allow for states to solve the issue is no more acceptable, and is a deviation from his philosophy of libertarianism.
I understand Paul’s inclination towards state’s rights, however, that doesn’t excuse his belief gays and lesbians should have to petition states for the same rights as everyone else. Even if they were to succeed as they have, and probably will in further territories, same-sex couples would still be denied some of the benefits that marriage entails.
I’ve also heard Paul voice the idea that marriage should be left to the private sector, which doesn’t seem at all feasible or desirable.
“Republican presidential candidates are issuing biting and sustained attacks on the federal courts and the role they play in American life, reflecting and stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary,” read the introduction to a New York Times article regarding the candidates’ philosophy on the judiciary.
“Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices,” it continued. “Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage.”
“Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary,” said Paul in the article. The statement seemed so at odds with Paul’s avowal of strict interpretation of the Constitution. It seemed downright unconstitutional.
I understand why Paul said this while he was in Iowa, his attempt to appeal to caucus voters who were irate over the state Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage may have helped him secure his status in the race, but his followers should really question that position.
Unfortunately, Paul’s position on same-sex marriage or his ideas on the judiciary most likely won’t be challenged or questioned–at least not by his most ardent supporters who should find themselves in the curious position of agreeing with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN).