Question for Ted Cruz and Rick Perry

"Q: The 2014 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas says, 'Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.... ' Do you agree with this statement?"

At that, the statement represents a degree of moderation from the 2010 platform, which says, "We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases." It then goes on to talk about the fundamental unchanging truths, etc. I always hoped that someone would ask Ron Paul about this in 2012.

By the way, does anyone know where they're getting this stuff about our nation's founders?

If you start looking the 2014 platform, though, you can find all kinds of statements that a national Presidential candidate would probably prefer not to deal with, at least during the general election:

"We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes."

"We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax."

"We urge the legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents, including the Bible as their basis. Students and district personnel have the right to display Christian items on school property."

"We oppose any sex education other than the biology of reproduction and abstinence until marriage."

But why go on? This is the full right-wing-crank stuff. Supporting those positions probably wouldn't damage Cruz or Perry at all in the Republican primaries. But that's interesting in itself, no?

No More Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. Paul

Has anyone else noticed how Ron Paul seems to be getting a free pass from the media? Partly, of course, that's because no one gives him a snowball's chance in hell of being elected President. But journalists also seem to have bought into the image of him as a crusty old libertarian who sticks to his principles no matter how politically suicidal-- the unelectable straight shooter (check out this profile from NPR). And he's playing up this image-- in an interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS he just couldn't stop talking about how antiwar he is.

So here are some questions for a future interviewer:

Congressman Paul, you were reelected in 2010 as a Republican in Texas. As you know, the 2010 platform of the Texas Republican Party states:

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans....

We oppose the legalization of sodomy [i.e., Lawrence v. Texas, a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in 2003]. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. 

Do you support these statements?

If so, how do you reconcile them with your libertarian beliefs? Do you believe that government regulation of private conduct is less onerous when done by a state government than when done by the Federal government? Do you think that states should have the right to regulate gun ownership, or just sexual conduct?

If not, did you have any qualms about running on this platform? How, if at all, did you make your opposition known?