Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Ron Paul’s Iowa State Director Is Also A Leading Anti-Gay Extremist

Jim Burroway

December 27th, 2011

Michael Heath, State Director of the Ron Paul for President Campaign in Iowa.

This guy: Michael Heath. He’s the former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, who resigned in 2009 because he was too much of a “lightning rod” when anti-gay activists began gearing up to repeal the recently-passed marriage equality bill. In 2008, Heath had blamed the economic crisis on “America’s sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions.” In 2010, Peter LaBarbera announced that Heath would serve as board chairman for LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, just one of a small handful of groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. Last September, he joined the Ron Paul campaign in Iowa as that state’s director. (The announcement is dated November 16, although the news was picked up two month earlier.)

[via Warren Throckmorton]

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Victor
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Have we not learned by now that every time one of these hateful right-wingers rises to prominence on the strength of their antigay rhetoric it is only a matter of time before he’s caught toe-tappin’ in a public toilet or making drug deals in exchange for sex or hiring rentboys? It’s almost like I want to apologize in advance for the reckless antics of these miserable closet-cases who seem to only be able to handle their secret predilections by trying to destroy those who live openly, without shame or apology. One look at this guy and I see a little bit of history repeating itself. (Can Michelle Bachman’s embarrassment of a husband be far behind?) That Rand Paul has chosen to invite this guy into his campaign tells us all we need to know about what kind of people he would bring into his administration, were he to be elected.

Rob in San Diego
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

I’m still voting for Ron Paul!

jc
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Rob? Really? I guess for some sideways economic reason one might not see the hate as all that important… But really? Hitler had a good point of view once too, right?

Timothy Kincaid
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Oh Lordy, the Michael Heath? Not only is he a phobe, he’s a wackadoodle of the first order. You can almost hear a calliope play when he talks and keep expecting a tiny car to pull up and clowns to pile out and throw a bucket of confetti on you.

Charles
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Here is a link to a video of Ron Paul on his position on gay marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-rn6LMYbhw

I don’t think Mr. Heath would by happy about Paul’s position.

Charles
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

I am not a Paul supporter! I will be voting for Romney in the South Carolina primary.

AJD
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Ron Paul’s reply in the video amounts to a non-opposition opposition.

“Get the federal government out of marriage and leave it up to the states” sounds like a nice libertarian compromise, but he conveniently leaves out that one’s marital status matters a great deal at the federal level in the event that he or she goes to another state or wishes to sponsor a foreign-born partner for residency.

Christopher Hitchens once referred to Ron Paul as “sinister,” and I feel inclined to agree with him.

Brian Miller
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Ron Paul put out a statement praising the recall election in Iowa for removing the judges there who enforced the state constitution and invalidated the anti-gay marriage law there.

His statements on marriage equality are also very, very clear. When he was pushing his anti-gay “Marriage Protection Act,” he not only decried marriage equality, but also stated that Texas and other states had a “right” to a sodomy law (and that there’s no constitutional right to privacy):

“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.””

“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.”

“Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people.”

That position is not “get the state out of marriage,” and Ron Paul supporters are blatantly dishonest when they say it is. That position is “ensure that the state is deeply involved in marriage AND regulation of individuals’ sex lives.”

And that’s not even remotely libertarian.

Rob in San Diego
December 27th, 2011 | LINK

Yes JC, my backwards screwed up little mind is still voting for him. Can you show me another Republican candidate who does not think the same?

I love Ron Paul’s stance on marriage, the government should be out of it COMPLETELY! Leave it to the churches, since there are those churches who are for marriage equality. If the government is going to discriminate against me, then they should get out of it completely!

And of all the other Republican candidates plus Obama, can you show me 1 that does not toe the party line, or who will actually deliver us a smaller government, one that stops policing the world, one that doesn’t hand out money to other governments that we can’t afford?

No I’m still voting for Ron Paul, and so are all of my gay and straight friends, liberal and conservative.

And to answer your question on Hitler, he may of done the wrong thing, but he sure did have a whole country behind him, and he wasn’t torturing or forcing them to follow him, they did so on their own, now that is amazing.

Eric in Oakland
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Rob, Ron Paul does not believe the government (federal or state) should get out of the marriage business. He supported DOMA and supported a law that would forbid courts from considering the constitutionality of DOMA. He also voiced approval of the drive in Iowa to remove the judges who gave gays the right to marry there. Besides, the federal government is so entangled with marriage that it isn’t possible to get out of it without horrendous changes to the system. And why should they? Marriage has never been primarily a religious institution. I refuse to accept this recent attempt by religious extremists to claim marriage as their exclusive property.

By the way, your fanatical loyalty for Paul and your subsequent views regarding Hitler are truly frightening.

Skooter McGoo
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Rob in San Diego. Just in case you were unaware of history, Hitler would have put a gay man like you in the oven to burn without a second thought. Just because he created the Autobahn & Volkswagons does NOT make him the saving grace of Germany. Truth is not determined by the number of people who believe something to be true. You vote Ron Paul, like some of my gay friends and you vote against yourself in freedoms of life in the USA. Gay Republicans=oxymoron

Priya Lynn
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Rob said “I love Ron Paul’s stance on marriage, the government should be out of it COMPLETELY! Leave it to the churches…”.

Why should the churches be the sole owners of marriage? What about us atheists, do you think its just to force us to go to churches to get married?

Timothy Kincaid
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

Good question.

But if marriage were solely a religious thing, i.e. vows before God, then why would an atheist want to marry?

If the government thing (civil union or contract or whatever) were distinctly separate from the religious component (marriage) as it is in some countries, why would you even care?

But of course you do.

And I think that your question points out something that I know I’ve not really fully addressed before. Marriage has more than the two components (civil and religious) that we usually discuss. It also contains a third quality: social and societal meaning.

For an atheist (if I may presume to speak for atheists for a moment) there might not be a religious meaning to marriage, but it isn’t just signing a legal document either. Marriage has social meaning and a place in culture and community.

And I don’t think we point this out often enough. It is, after all, the basis of our argument in the Prop 8 case.

Priya Lynn
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy said “But if marriage were solely a religious thing, i.e. vows before God, then why would an atheist want to marry?”.

Atheists don’t agree that marriage is solely, or at all, a religious thing.

Timothy said “If the government thing (civil union or contract or whatever) were distinctly separate from the religious component (marriage) as it is in some countries, why would you even care? But of course you do.”.

Once again, I don’t accept that marriage is a religious component. As long as secular marriage is available I couldn’t care less what churches do with their marriage ceremonies. Like many religious people, you seem to be claiming marriage is a religious concept owned by religions – it is not. Just because religions claim ownership and authorship of marriage does not mean they have it.

Priya Lynn
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy, I remember arguing with my brother just before Canada got marriage equality (he was opposed). He said that it was nonsensical for any gay or lesbian to want to get married because marriage was a religious concept.

Jim Burroway
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Re:

Like many religious people, you seem to be claiming marriage is a religious concept owned by religions – it is not.

I’ll have to say that you’re doing it again Priya. Timothy only appeared to say what you claim he saying if he had stopped at where you quoted him. But he didn’t stop there, did he? Please read the rest. I think you and he are in agreement.

Donny D.
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Rob in San Diego wrote,

And to answer your question on Hitler, he may of done the wrong thing, but he sure did have a whole country behind him, and he wasn’t torturing or forcing them to follow him, they did so on their own, now that is amazing.

That is a complete reversal of the truth. Hitler never had anything like the whole of Germany behind him, and his people did one hell of a lot of torturing and forcing Germans to go along with Hitler’s agenda.

I have to wonder at your motivation for writing such a thing. Either you’re historically very ignorant, you’re trying to whitewash Hitler and German Nazism, or you’re both. This doesn’t look good coming from a Ron Paul supporter after all the other disturbing things we’ve learned about him.

Darina
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

The only legally recognized form of marriage in my country is explicitly called “civil marriage” (this is the conventional very literal translation from Bulgarian into English) in any relevant legal documents. What a priest performs is called “church marriage” and has no legal value whatsoever (there is also a separate word for the Christian religious ceremony itself). I don’t know what the Muslims’ and other religious minorities’religious marriages are called.

Claiming that marriage is a purely religious institution wouldn’t make any sense in my language and my culture. The interesting legacy of a Communist regime. :)

Don’t envy us; we also have the phenomenon of perfectly secular homophobia, and we don’t even have the civil union kind of thing for same-sex couples.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.