I found recently that the poorer parts of my own county (Montgomery County, Maryland) actually have more highly qualified teachers than the high school I attended (in one of the wealthiest parts of the county). Even more interesting, I discovered that schools in Garrett county (one of the poorest in the county) have EVEN MORE QUALIFIED teachers than Montgomery (one of the richest in the state, if not country).

I’m not saying that educational discrepancies do not occur: tutors, driven parents, competitive classmates, etc, but states can responsibly allocate resources. I am thoroughly unconvinced that they can’t.

Barack Obama invited an anti-gay speaker to his campaign event.
John Edwards is morally opposed to gay marriage
Hilary Clinton refuses to standup for equality and supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

All the other Republicans? Forget about it.

This reminds me of Clinton’s recent speech in which, while praising the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it took a president to get things done. I disagree.

Looking at the Democratic Congress (Matthew Shepard Act?? ENDA??) I’m even more convinced that there is no need to blindly support them.

Politicians, unfortunately it seems, rarely act boldly. It is incumbent upon the citizens to demand justice. Yes, the civil rights act helped, yes using federal troops to desegregate schools helped, but those were in response to increasing public outcry: discrimination based on race is unacceptable.

I’m sad to say that it just doesn’t seem like this crop of candidates will stand up for equality, regardless of the political cost. If there were such a candidate, who also held positions in other areas I could get behind, I would support her or him in a heartbeat. There is not.

The public must demand more from their local leaders and their representatives in Congress. If there is enough support to pass legislation, the President won’t be able to stand in the way. It will take leaders such as MLK to show the public the error of their ways and provide a path towards reconciliation. When that happens, it won’t matter who is president.

And of course, there is always the oppurtunity for the Supreme Court to rule that restricting marriage based on gender today is just as unacceptable as restricting marriage based on race was during Loving v Virginia.

As far as Ron Paul’s position on GBLT folks, no president is going to ram through a truly equal marriage law, but of all the contenders,Ron Paul’s newsletters show him to be the most actively hostile, or at least the most willing to demean gays and lesbians of all of them. (referring to his news letters I referred to from the TNR article in my earlier comment)

Brian, I think there is a point you are missing in all this.

The only reason the Civil Rights Movement was able to move forward was because the visionaries and activists of the time found members of the federal government (State Department, White House, etc.) who were willing to stand up for what was right.

I’d dare say that the Civil Rights Movement would have hit a few more speed bumps if it had not have the federal government backing them up.

Your vision of Ron Paul’s reigning in a highly intrusive federal government, no matter how admirable and needed that is, leaves open the *huge* likelihood that Paul would not let the federal government step in when it was necessary (as it had to do during the Civil Rights Movement).

Under Paul’s leadership, the White House would do nothing to try to solve any instances of extreme anti-gay behavior by state governments, if that should ever happen.

I, too, think that the federal government has way too much power. I’d dare say that the majority of Southerners — liberal and progressive or conservative — agree in that aspect. However, many of us do believe that there are certainly times when the federal government needs to step in, mainly to take up its obligations to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

America knows from experience that the states (well, at least some of the states) have a history of not being able to live up to those obligations. The federal government needs to be involved. To what extent? I don’t know.

I am not supporting Ron Paul for governor of Maryland or the local county council. I’m supporting him for President of the US–the head of the executive branch of the federal government.

By looking at his voting record in Congress, I trust that he will reign in an increasingly invasive federal government, restore Constutional rights violated by the past administrations, and maintain a balance between the branches of government.

He might not have a problem with the state government oppressing people, but he’s not going to be running any state. Governor Spitzer introduced a marriage equality bill in NY, the CA state legislature has passed marriage equality measures multiple times, and I’m confident the Maryland legislature will stand up for equality when their time comes (and you can bet they’ll be hearing from me!).

I can’t judge Ron Paul based upon what he *might* do if he were elected to a state position, only what he has done and will do at the federal level. And from what I’ve seen so far, I like it.

He is always opposed to the “federal government” oppressing you, but he never has a problem with the state government throwing you in jail.

His obsession is not libertarian anti-government, it is confederate “states rights” obsession with the FEDERAL government.

As it turns out. I missed the date to change party affiliations (which was months ago, and I’m rather annoyed about) so looks like I’m still a registered Bush-backlash Democrat. And I think I will be voting for John Edwards in the Democratic primary.

I just can’t go as far as he does in letting the Federal government out of things altogether. States’ rights have in the past shown themselves a playground for denying others their inalienable rights by majoritarian local rule. Some Federal government is necessary, just not as much as either the Dems or Repubs would like these days. Limited, not absent government is my take.

What I would hope other candidates would get from his message is twofold: fiscal responsibility (meaning balanced budgets) by raising taxes, cutting budgets, or both; and defense of Constitutional liberties.