Brian, I do not think the accusation of raging homophobia on Paul's part is fair. In the case of the defense of marriage act, the authors and supporters of the act were acting to prevent a far more hateful faction of the ruling party that wanted to have a federal ban as Constitutional ammendment. The defense of marriage act shortstopped that effort and was based on principles of state Sovereignty. Numerous posts have been made to demonstrate that Paul has reasoned libertarian views on many gay issues and knows how to phrase those views to bring agreement to conservative audiences. Making war with the natural social conservatives that rightfully form half of our party will only serve the interests of the statists. Finding common ground in limited government is the best hope for advancing liberty . If we do not hang together, we will surely hang seperately. Our strength will be in educating the unwashed social conservatives who have joined the party in part by recruiting the true libertarian social conservatives among our members and leaders to join the effort.This is the effort we muststart with,education and persuasion. Combatting the unwashed conservatives may be necessary when they initiate destructive actions, but simultaneous efforts at outreach and education should be always in the forefront. The true libertarian message, honestly presented, can usually melt the most hateful social conservative. If done well, they may even sit next to Starchild at the banquet table..
Sorry, Phil, but I've gotta beg to differ on a few points here. I'll highlight them:
In the case of the defense of marriage act, the authors and supporters of the act were acting to prevent a far more hateful faction of the ruling party that wanted to have a federal ban as Constitutional ammendment.<<
That is indeed Hillary Clinton's take on the matter, but the reality is that the DOMA never would have happened if Bill Clinton had not announced -- voluntarily -- that he would be lobbying for an anti-gay constitutional amendment OR national statute, and in either case, he would support it.
In fact, after announcing his strong support for DOMA, he ran a series of ads on right-wing radio shows talking about how he "supported DOMA to protect our values." You can read a transcript of the ads here:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/doma/1996/clinton.radio.ad.txt-10.14.96
The Constitutional amendment thing was a bugbear. There was no hope of passing such an amendment, even back in 1996. A 2/3 state ratification process, and 2/3 Congressional ratification, would not have happened.
The defense of marriage act shortstopped that effort and was based on principles of state Sovereignty.<<
It did not stop the amendment effort (which followed during the Bush administration) and it is NOT based on principles of "state sovereignty." It creates and imposes a federal definition of marriage on states (and individuals). States that have varying definitions, such as Massachusetts, have their state certifications invalidated both for state purposes and federal purposes.
That is a clear violation of the full faith and credit act.
Much as the states-righters like Paul enjoy pretending that we're 50 independent countries, that's just not the case. Never has been.
Numerous posts have been made to demonstrate that Paul has reasoned libertarian views on many gay issues and knows how to phrase those views to bring agreement to conservative audiences<<
Ron Paul's positions on gay issues are diametrically opposed to the Libertarian Party's positions in the following areas:
1) Military service and the ending of the DADT policy. The LP is for both, Ron Paul is opposed to the latter and flip-flops on the former.
2) Marriage equality. The LP is for it, Ron Paul is against it.
3) The Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court ruling. The LP applauded it, Ron Paul attempted to overturn it.
4) Equal immigration treatment for gay multinational couples. The LP is for it, Ron Paul is against it.
I could go on and on, but on MOST gay issues, Ron Paul's position is diametrically opposed to the LP's. That's not my definition of "libertarian."
Making war with the natural social conservatives that rightfully form half of our party will only serve the interests of the statists.<<
"Rightfully form half of our party?"
Social conservatives ARE statists. Anyone who seeks to use government power to compel others to his view of society is a statist.
The LP is not socially conservative, never has been, and never will be. The LP has never taken socially conservative positions and, while from time to time, social conservatives attempt to force the LP to change to their perspectives -- the platform debate being a prime example of this -- that's an effort to change the fundamental character of the LP from a party of individual liberties to a party that uses government power to impose social views.
I am all in favor of inclusion -- but I'm also in favor of definitions. The LP is not a party for social conservatives -- never has been, never will be. People who want to use government power to force their religious views on others should be Republicans, not Libertarians.
This is the effort we muststart with,education and persuasion.<<
I'm all for both. In fact, I'll be at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno to reach out to the sane ones.
I am not for supporting social conservatives who posture themselves (incorrectly) as "libertarians" however. Nor will I accept that statism in the cause of "social conservatism" (or "social liberalism" for that matter) are legitimate causes within the Libertarian Party. I certainly won't accept a Ron Paul candidacy (as you know).
In my view, to the extent that Libertarians support existing statist arrangements (such as marriage equality), we should do so only as a transitional policy towards individual freedom. That's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the "states' rights" reading of the constitution that ignores that pesky part that notes that PEOPLE also have rights. Ron Paul forgets that bit of the 9th amendment rather often and seems to lean heavily against the rights of the people and towards the "rights" of state governments -- not very libertarian.
But I digress.
Frankly, I think our time is wasted in reaching out to committed social conservatives. People who believe that government power is rightly used to compel others to their will are never going to support LP causes. We don't help ourselves or the movement as a whole by accepting those statist arguments ourselves in an effort to "reach out."
We should be focused on growing the LP by reaching out to the 19% of voters who are broadly libertarian, not the 8% or so who are close-the-border, ban-the-gays, regulate-uterus social conservatives.
And incidentally, the homophobia of that latter group is why there are so many Larry Craigs in the GOP. It's corrosive, nasty, and destructive to individuals' spirit.
Cheers,
Brian