Dan don't forget Iowa and New Hampshire are both marriage equality states. I think that makes a big difference too.

If equality depends on turning conservatives into liberals, it is a lost cause. The future is convincing conservatives that equality is perfectly consistent with their own values. That marriage equality IS a pro-family position. That the ability to serve openly IS good for national security. That non-discrimination IS living up to the principles of the Constitution.

I think in this regard, some Republican voters are way ahead of most Republican politicians. I hope the trend continues.

Stand up to bullies! Huzzah!

Ron Paul remains horrible on reproductive rights. Do not let this slip your mind.

@2 There's a shitload of difference between honest-to-God Constitutional conservatives, and the God-bothering, prosperity-gospel, born-again, xenophobic, evangelical, "social conservatives" that the GOP has thrown their lot in with.

I'll happily argue with Constitutional conservatives over social welfare and consumer protection issues and the like. Social conservatives aren't worth the mud on their shoes or the time of day.

@5-Right there with you. Just didn't want to try to parse all the flavors of "conservative" in one blog comment.

@4; who gives a shit about repro rights, you pussy. Why not let a few states try their own thing as an experiment. I prefer diversity over the homogenized, wal-martization of culture. I want me some rednecks in my boonies and some authentic asian joints in my chinatown. If you really cared about those "rights" you should put your money where Michelle Bachmann is and drone bomb the entire middle east back to the 20th century.

President Ron Paul will also make sure that millions of gay people* have no health insurance, no right to unionize and no access to free education.

*Straight people too.

Except a few weeks ago it was Herman Cain in front, and Rick Perry before Cain, and before that it was Bachmann. I don't think anything is happening here. It's just musical chairs.

You're nuts if you think Ron Paul supports gay marriage. His position is, as always, an extreme state's rights one, but he strongly supports DOMA and was opposed to the Lawrence v Texas decision that overturned his state's law against sodomy.

I think what's happening is that these issues don't matter to as many people as they did in previous races. It's just not something that will get people votes anymore, because deep down people realize that these issues don't really affect them. They'd rather have a president who can fix the economy.

It's a bit of a reach to just say Ron Paul thinks gay people should be allowed to marry without qualification. He's been sort of against federal laws about it, but says he would've voted for DOMA and he co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act. He wouldn't stop states that support it from allowing it, but more than likely would favor states to ban it and wouldn't require states where it's illegal to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. It's another issue he rarely gives a straight answer on.

Yeah, you're dead wrong on Ron Paul. In reaction to Lawrence v. Texas, he wrote a bill, the ­"We the People Act" which he keeps reintroducing in every Congress, that would strip federal courts of the power to make decisions and issue rulings "regarding the right of privacy including sexual practices, orientation or reproduction, and the role of the Equal Protection clause on the right to marry."

He's kind of a turd

Ron Paul is a hater and a nutjob, just not in exactly the same way as Michele Bachmann

So how are you going to pass the time from now on, Dan?

So when do you think the Ron Paul fanboys will show up to lecture on how we should just accept the loss of free K-12 education and bargaining rights, and letting states legislate women's and queers' bodies because states have more rights than people, because we'll be somehow "freer" that way?

You haven't included how these losers feel about my body and what I have a right to do with it. Important information left out.