Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
Sorry for entering the conversation late but you do realize that Paul's version of libertarianism means that if you are gay or pro-choice or believe in separation of church and state and happen to live in a state or county or province that allows gay rights and abortion then everything's cool BUT that the flipside is that if you live in a state or county where they don't then .. you're fucked?
And of course this includes people who are too young to vote. Under this guy's rule I'd feel very sorry for a gay person or a woman of any age with an unwanted pregnancy (especially underage pregnant women) who happen to live in a pro-life, anti-gay state. That is, most of them.
And it costs a lot to move cross country.
I can't vote for that kind of leadership.
|
Id vote Paul if I was gay. Your chance of having legal gay marriage is best with him. He doesn't think the government should even be involved in marriage. The rest of the candidates are set on the idea that marriage is a "sacred relationship between man and woman". Santorum and Romney and Gingrich think there should be a constitutional amendment that says marriage should be strictly between man and woman. It's laughable that candidates who claim to advocate "small government" and "less regulation" want to intrude on the private lives of American citizens and regulate whom they can and can't marry.
Interesting thing to note: Norma McCorvey, better known as "Jane Roe", actually supports Ron Paul.