Ron Paul: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

As expected many of Ron Paul's skeletons have crawled out of the closet from his past in order to haunt us today in the current roller-coaster GOP race. So where does this all leave us? Pretty much in the same place. The people, in this case gays and lesbians, who hated Ron Paul in the past will continue to do so, no matter how much Ron Paul tries to distance himself from all of these shady allegations. These gays who hate Ron will further be emboldened while those who support him (including, yes, gays and lesbians) will be more emboldened to support him considering that they view all of these attacks as coming from the dinosaur GOP/DNC run establishment media. In the end, most of Paul's gay attackers do not realize how strong Ron Paul's base is, and how loyal his supporters, even the gay ones, are. This will be the gay establishment media's kryptonite on this issue.

But of course we shouldn't excuse those homophobic newsletters, whoever wrote them, and the somewhat surprising acquaintances that are helping Ron Paul in Iowa.

The Ugly

It has been brought to light that the Ron Paul campaign has indeed hired one of the most ugliest and steadfast homophobes of our time by the name of Mike Heath, who is the executive director of the anti-gay hate group "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality." I agree with the SPLC's description of these people as a hate group, being that they blame gays for pedophilia, have compared gays to animals, and has called for the arrest of gays and for our criminal prosecution.

This is indeed troubling on the surface. What I have to question is not why would Ron Paul take him on board but rather why goofs like Mike Heath, have decided to support this libertarian candidate who is totally contrary to their beliefs and political activism regarding homosexuality. What merits a better explanation would be for them explaining to AFTAH and other social conservatives why they are supporting Ron Paul and not Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum being that Ron has indeed voted against their own platform. American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has attacked Ron Paul for his libertarian, let it be attitude regarding social issues, you also have Bob Vander Plaats denouncing Paul for his candid opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. On the other side of the fence you also have the Human Rights Campaign, oddly enough, applauding a Ron Paul win in Iowa and claiming that such a win would send sound statement to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that voters in Iowa don't care about gay marriage anymore.

I do not get the tactic behind hiring Mike Heath, unless of course Heath does not view his homophobic platform as a priority anymore since Ron Paul wants government out of marriage and out of our bedrooms. Maybe Heath has taken into consideration Ron Paul's foreign policy of peace and monetary policy of sound money and auditing or eliminating the oppressive Federal Reserve System, which some, including Paul, blame for the economic depression that we are in. Maybe they just viewed these issues as more important and like gays who support Ron Paul, put these issues to the forefront and social issues to the back burner. Many gay Ron Paul supporters support Ron Paul for his war policies as well for his economic policy of sound money. Many that I have met support him because of his steadfast defense of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and the right to be left alone (and be gay). These Paulistic stances do not sit well with many social/neo-conservatives who want to meddle in the Middle East and want the government to regulate and outlaw homosexuality.

The Bad


I've always known about the shady newsletters about gays, AIDS and the rest. I have read them over and over again. Yet I cannot reconcile these newsletters with who Ron Paul really is. I have met him once a few years ago in Minnesota during his "rally for the republic" convention, and I did ask him about these newsletters (when NOBODY cared at that time), he has denied any  involvement in said newsletters, and told me that he has no negative views of homosexuals or homosexuality. As a medical doctor he explained that he believed that homosexuality is not a choice and that homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality. After that exchange I was quite relieved. In fact I'm still am. The problem is that the campaign is not doing enough to debunk these allegations and to set the record straight.

I told Ron about my sexuality and he said it was my business and that government has no right to intervene. He shook my hand, padded me on the back and wished me the best. I have met Santorum and Bachmann, and I can say that my exchange with Paul was more surprising, and I was more at ease with him than these two goofs who tended to try to runaway from me and my questioning.

However the bad side is that Ron Paul is probably not going to address this issue anymore than what has been said. That means that we can all say what we want about these newsletters, but I'm not convinced about the claims made by some people, and to be honest I'm not a Ron Paul hardcore supporter. In fact I would rather throw my hat in for Gary Johnson to be honest. But I do agree on Paul's main issues and I think he is better candidate and has run a better campaign overall than the other gargoyles of the GOP. But I think Ron Paul needs to do more. He needs to come out and say what he told me in Minnesota and be honest to these homophobes and his gay attackers.

The Good


I say lets judge the man based on his voting record. While the other GOP candidates have negative voting records against LGBTs, Ron Paul has a better one. Words are words, but actions, like voting and supporting bills in Congress etc, speak louder than words and actually DO affect us all.

Ron Paul has voted to repeal the infamous "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law which repeal was signed into law by President Obama. Ron Paul has repeatedly voted against any constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. While he is supportive of DOMA, he will and has considered alternative substitutes as long as they protect state's rights to define marriage as they wished. Overall not bad, but still to some not good enough. And I completely understand. This is the same frustration we have with Obama, who by the way, is still "evolving" on gay marriage. I don't care about your "evolution" to gay marriage heaven, I care about is your policy decision as an official and legislator of the State.

Comparing Ron Paul to the darlings of the extreme right, he is probably the best we have right now given the fact that he has a better chance this time around than before to actually take the White House. While a Paul Administration would be challenging on the DOMA issue, it would not be as different as today since DOMA is still law and it has not been taken down by the Supreme Court. Our only refuge will be, and has always been the courts, regardless who is in the White House. The only thing that will change in a Paul administration will be of course the State Department, the Pentagon,  the Treasury etc etc, those are big changes, maybe for the best. Obama has promised to not police world and to protect our civil rights, but as time goes by he has failed to do just that as he is still continuing the Bush policy of indefinite detention of American citizens, torture, nation building, and even murdering American citizens abroad. These are very serious issues that need to be addressed.

In the end, no candidate is perfect. No politician is squeaky clean, especially on gay issues. Even Obama has had many clashes with the gay community when, for example, he let that dofus Hawaiian shirt wearing "pastor" Rick Warren officiate over the Inaugural prayer and when his Department of Justice compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia.

So when these things: the good, the bad, and the ugly show up, lets not act surprised (unless of course you have an ulterior agenda). Its the nature of the beast. Perfection is impossible, and there has not been and most likely never will be any person that will be 100% gay approved. There is no such thing as a 'gay friendly politician' just politicians 'with gay friendly voting records.' 

Tweet