A Stitch in Haste

Much buzz over Ron Paul's appearance at the most recent Republican debate joint press conference --

CAMERON: Why are those on stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?

PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.

Libertarians are rejoicing. Andrew Sullivan declares it "conservative sanity."

I call it a moral defective being morally defective.

To review:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] ... In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
...
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
...
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
...
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
...
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

There are two possible explanations for Paul's (only somehwat) changed stance, neither of which in any diminishes his contemptibility on the subject:

1. Re-read, carefully, exactly what Paul said: "We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution."

Here is an openly declared anti-gay bigot, trying to appeal mostly to openly declared anti-gay bigots, insisting that "we know what marriage is about." Do you really think he thinks, or that he thinks they think, that marriage "is about" two competent consenting adults not being irrationally discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation, premised upon primitive religious dogma and the "will of the majority"?

Or was there a not-so-subtle implication: "We do know what marriage is about -- a man and a woman." "We don't need a new definition -- from activist judges." And so on.

This is -- if it is what Paul is attempting -- comparable to the silly garbage that Rudy Giuliani is telling these same theocrats about appointing "strict constructionist" judges -- a term that has no coherent meaning except as code for anti-Roe. Giuliani is engaging is naked, uncomplicated Mephistophelian haggling: Give me the White House and I'll give you the Supreme Court. No philosophical underpinnings required. So too, perhaps, with Paul, the theocrats and gay marriage.

2. The alternative is of course that Paul has indeed flip-flopped on gay marriage. Which makes him "not just another politician" -- how?

He may be selling a "new and improved" version of himself, but I'm still not buying.