Comment

GOP Crowd Boos Gay Soldier Serving in Iraq, While Santorum Babbles About Sex

495
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)9/23/2011 8:45:30 am PDT

re: #430 HappyWarrior

And in grudging defense of Ron Paul and his supporters who I make no secret of my disliking, the latter tend to be less homophobic than the others in my observation. Maybe it’s because Paul supporters are by and large a younger crowd, I dunno.

Make no mistake: Ron Paul has explicitly stated that he supports the rights of States to criminialize specific sexual conduct, of course including homosexual conduct:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

lewrockwell.com

Paulbots generally don’t give a shit, though. I figure they are too high most of the time to realize that they support a paleo-socon theocrat who doesn’t give a fuck about the SCOTUS (from the above linked article):

The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law” — a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego.

Furthermore:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

lewrockwell.com