Ron Paul’s Opposition to Gay Marriage Clarified
As noted before Ron Paul’s campaign has tried to play both sides of the aisle, responding with questions about Ron Paul and gay rights by pointing to his vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
While his campaign has tried to spin this as an act of tolerance, Ron Paul’s own article on the subject makes it clear that it is the exact opposite and that Ron Paul has worked hard to fight gay marriage.
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, 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.
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree.
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!… In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law… Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
There you have it. Ron Paul is very much an opponent of gay marriage. He has fought hard against gay marriage. Unsurprising for a man who has openly expressed his dire for a “Christian America” where the power of churches eclipses the power of the state. Who supported religious fanatics spewing anti-gay hate speech and fought hate crimes legislation.
His only quibbling is a technical one over Federal power.
![](http://i26.tinypic.com/2ns73sx.jpg")
![](http://i31.tinypic.com/x60owm.jpg")
Stumble it!
Yes, you are correct in that he opposes gay marriage. But the beauty of it is that he does not believe the federal government should even be concerning itself with such issues. In fact, he believes that the federal government should not have a say in many important issues (including abortion.. he is pro-life, btw). That the issues should be decided on a state level, allowing for more individual freedoms. That is why this man would do great things as president.
Comment by Joe — June 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Opposing Federal Laws in favor of State Laws does not mean supporting freedom. It means supporting government control at a different level. It’s an ideological issue, not one that creates more liberty.
Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and opposes abortion and believes that states are the best bet for fighting both.
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
“Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and opposes abortion and believes that states are the best bet for fighting both.”
When did he tell you this? When he was at your house and you guys were watching that movie and you both got so high LOL? It seems to me that Ron Paul simply believes that the decision should be decided on a more local level. If Ohio wants to allow smae sex marriages I believe, from Dr. Paul’s actions in the past, he would disagree with what they did but still fully recognize it and defend it against the federal government. If you find my conclusion faulty I ask that you show me an instance where Dr. Paul has argued against following a law on the state level.
Comment by ChairmanMao — June 5, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I didn’t say he argued against following state laws. I said he felt it was best possible to repress women and gays at a state rather than federal level, which is more likely to protect minorities.
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Your opinion on protection is completely legitimate which stems back to protection versus freedom but thats a different discussion. Whether Ron Paul wants to repress gays and what would constitue repressing gays is debateable but where does your statement about women come from? My personal view of Ron Paul is that of a fine southern gentleman (not to be confused with any additional stereotype involving treatment of women) and I have not witnessed or read anything to the contrary. If you are speaking of Homosexual women though please be more clear next time. I apoligize if any of this has glaring spelling errors but the borders on this comment box are bloody obnoxius.
Comment by ChairmanMao — June 5, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
The issue isn’t protection vs freedom. It’s moving the jurisdiction from one level of government to another, where Ron Paul expects things to have a more favorable outcome.for his particular ideological bias.
It’s not a matter of freedom vs regulation. It’s a matter of which regulation you choose. If Ron Paul was really against regulation, he wouldn’t support “protecting a traditional definition of marriage” using laws in the first place.
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
We’ve already talked about your first paragraph but let me phrase it another way. What makes you think Ron Paul would try and get a bill handled by a lower level of an institute of government to make it more likely to pass. Speaking in favor of Ron Paul I believe that that would demonstrate an abuse of power to further his own beliefs. I have not read anything suggesting in the past that Ron Paul has abused his powers to further his own beliefs. If you can find something contrary to that I would welcome it.
Your second statement is a bit more interesting though. I believe it falls into the true Scottsmans fallacy and all Ill say about that is that I believe Dr. Paul bases part of his decision on where that regulation comes from.
Comment by ChairmanMao — June 5, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Hi everybody, I’m new to the site and thought I’d throw in my two cents.
I support Ron Paul, although I believe legalizing gay marriage would be a
good thing. While I disagree with Paul’s personal belief, I agree with his
position that the Federal government should stay out of the issue, and that
no state government should be forced to accept a definition of marriage
prescribed by the Feds. Even if this belief has something to do with the idea
that it is easier to defeat gay marriage at the state level, leaving the issue to
state governments to decide is still the only constitutionally consistent
position one can take. Even as a bisexual man who believes in equal
treatment under the law, I believe it would be dangerous to violate the tenth
amendment for a perceived social good because of the precedent it sets.
The federal government must be subject to strict limitations if we are to
prevent it from becoming tyrannical. No exceptions.
Ron Paul would preserve the constitution by recognizing the states’ right
to make their own decisions under the tenth amendment, meaning that he
would position himself against any federal marriage ban or anti-gay
amendment. This is a better guarantee than you’ll get from the democrats,
who have been half-assed at best in supporting gay rights.
Furthermore, anyone who really cares about the gay community should
support Ron Paul because of his staunch opposition to any and all federal
gun restrictions. I am incensed about this country’s absurd gun laws that
prevent law-abiding LGBT people from defending themselves against
gay bashers and others who would make victims of them. Ron Paul will help
put a stop to this, and therefore should be seen as a friend of freedom.
RP ‘08!
Comment by LIC guy — June 5, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
In Ron Paul’s view, the “republic” needs to be reclaimed from the evil democracy of mob rule, which is concentrated in coastal states and put back in the hands of the good upright moral people in the south and west.
He’s a culture warrior like most fundamentalist Christians. He’s personally opposed to gay marriage and willing to vote to regular marriage.
“If I were a member of the Texas 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.” Ron Paul
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Ron Paul has said he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
So much for his opposition to anti-gay amendments. Ron Paul has also said that he would have voted to ban gay marriage if he was a state legislator.
Gun rights these days have increasingly become a virtually bipartisan issue. The war on gun rights ended for the most part when Dems realized it was hurting them too much.
In any case it has nothing to do with the issue.
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
The real question is what business the government has in defining marriage in the first place. Ron’s response is based on his belief that the federal government should have no role in defining this. Truly, the churches and/or the states should have the only role. Beyond that, the only government role should be in defending a contract between tow people.
Comment by MrLiberty — June 5, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Except that Ron does believe in having the government define liberty because he supports his state passing a law that define marriage as being between a man and a woman
so he’s a hypocrite
Comment by O_Deus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
I hope Ron Paul can lead America back to freedom.
Comment by Whitetop — June 6, 2007 @ 12:22 am
I hope Ron Paul can lead himself to the bathroom
Comment by O_Deus — June 6, 2007 @ 12:26 am
O-Douche,
Moving power to the states increases liberty becuase it reduces central power and because it allows people to move to the states that suite them.
Reply freely retard.
Comment by Douche — June 6, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Having to deal with a state government vs the federal government doesn’t increase your liberty. Making a government smaller doesn’t make it any freer. There’s plenty of tiny dictatorships out there smaller than most states.
There’s still central power, it’s just located in another place. And moving to another state is advice that’s about as smart as moving to another country. If the system itself is bad, moving doesn’t help.
Comment by O_Deus — June 6, 2007 @ 12:58 am
@ o deus
There is a big difference between state power and federal power. I agree that with you that it is still a power issue and you still have a government imposing on you, but you have much more control over the state government than the federal. That is a huge step when you really think about it. I live in one of the countries smallest states (ND) and even though my issues are not in line with my state’s, I still have a greater opportunity to change it than changing the whole country.
Comment by joey — June 6, 2007 @ 2:57 am
You might have more control over the state government or you might not. It really depends on how your state is being run at a given time and it’s very much a crapshoot.
State governments also tend to be more directly corrupt and corruptible. They’re also far less accountable. I wouldn’t want the bozos in my state government to be the ultimate power. They’re worse than any Federal authority and twice as dirty.
There’s nothing inherently more democratic about State than Federal government as States Rights advocates contend.
Comment by O_Deus — June 6, 2007 @ 9:38 am
But does Ron Paul really support the constitution and equal rights, or does he support the church dictating everyone’s “morality.” Slavery was upheld by the “Christian church” in the past even justified in the name of the bible, and today we would see that line of reasoning and “morality as dispicable.Suppose the churches supported another inquisition or “witch burnings” should we allow then the church to dictate and impose it’s brand of moraliyt onto others. Our founding fathers favored separation of church and staes for this reason. Ron Paul’s” church “morality does not fit into the framework of the constitution.
Comment by KG — June 8, 2007 @ 5:12 am
First of all if Paul supported the constitution he would also support separation of state and church.Leaving the law of the land in the hands of the church would legislate “morality”
Comment by KG — June 8, 2007 @ 5:17 am
If all decisions on social issues were left up to the individual states to decide rather than the federal government, would women currnetly have the right to vote in every state, would slavery have been abolished in every state, and would we have the current federal civil rights laws in every state?
Comment by Rich — June 11, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
See what happens when you question the cult of Ron Paul.
Go instead to a federal issue and you still see Paul’s consistently antigay position. When asked about the current policy regarding gays in the military — which chucks them out if they are discovered to be gay he called that a “decent? policy.
He then tried to divert the question by a lecture on group rights versus individual rights even though that was not part of the issue. The question was about individuals being discharged for being gay. INDIVIDUALS. After that detour he then claimed the policy was about disruptive behaviour when it is NOT about that. A non-disruptive gay person can be discharged just for being gay. If he doesn’t know the facts he should admit it. If he did know the facts then why falsify them? Neither is good for someone who wants to be president.
The final confirmation that he was not saying he supported equal rights for gays was the last question. The candidates were told by the moderator that if there was a single one of them willing to allow gay people to serve in the military to please speak up. Ron Paul kept his lips tightly sealed. So much for equal individual rights. He doesn’t believe in group rights but he does appear to believe is stripping people of rights based on their group.
Comment by CLS — June 16, 2007 @ 5:03 am
Ron Paul’s stance on sexual liberties is inconsistent with his so-called “libertarian” values. He claims to oppose excessive government interference in personal, private matters, but he’s only against such interference if it’s coming from the FEDERAL government; the states can interfere in their citizens’ lives as much as they want!
Indeed, your state government could deny you the right to marry your partner because you have a different skin color than her; it could wield its power to seize your property and replace it with a Quick-E-Mart; and it could impose an official theocratic governing system upon all its jurisdictions. But at the end of the day, Ron Paul would respond to this theocratic authoritarianism by saying, “well, as long as the federal government isn’t doing it, there’s no problem!”
Comment by Mike — June 16, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I’M ASTONISHED AT HOW STUPID SOME OF YOU ARE. YOU’RE QUIBBLING OVER WHETHER THIS GUY COMES RIGHT OUT AND SAYS, “I HATE FAGS”! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LISTEN TO HIM SPEAK, READ WHAT HE WRITES, LOOK UP HIS VOTING RECORD, AND USE YOUR APPARENTLY UNDER-USED BRAINS. JESUS, THIS IS INFURIATING! HE’S A CHRISTIAN ZEALOT, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS! HE’S AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, HE OPPOSES ROE v WADE AND WANTS IT OVERTURNED, ETC., ETC., ETC.!
Comment by SHELDON — July 5, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
My wife and I would like to be seniors.
We are virtually seniors, we are old before our times. It was life in the fast lane, all-night parties, smoking, over-eating and just plain genetics.
However, we cannot qualify for social security or lots of other government benefits. We do not get the senior discount at coffee shops or the zoo.
We need to be fully senior not just virtually senior. It is currently unfair that we we cannot add 30 years to our drivers licences.
We stood with signs to protest the hate at a senior trailer park that would not let us in. Those that lived there called us names I will not repeat.
I stand for rights for virtual seniors.
Comment by Bruch — July 30, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
I’m guessing the above was supposed to be some sort of rejoinder to gay rights or whatnot but I’m afraid I don’t get it
Comment by O_Deus — July 30, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
marriage is a contract, a contract is between individuals, individuals have the right to contract, what does the state have to do with a contract between individuals.
Comment by Anonymous — September 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Our federal goverment is a total joke. Atleast at the local level you can go to a town meeting and have a real impact on whatever the issue is.. If any group thinks the federal goverment is the answer you are crazy
Comment by Anonymous — September 21, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Go to your local town meeting and see how much good it does getting your state government to do anything
Comment by O_Deus — September 22, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
What exactly is the differance between Civil Union and a Marriage? Why don’t we ALL just get civial unions, and if we want, go to the churches to decide who is Married. Isn’t it their seal of approval that makes one married??
Comment by Dawn — October 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
For starters not everyone goes to or wants to get married in a church, there are practical legal consequences to marriage, some of which are meant to protect the wife in such an arrangement, some of which are meant to promote marriage and children, some of which are just meant to promote the social arrangement
universal civil unions might be simpler in some ways but it would end up being marriage by another name, once the legalities fall into place
Comment by O_Deus — October 3, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are called by different names so why can’t their unions be called by different names? Otherwise wouldn’t we all be called simply “people” instead of receiving different names to identify us? Churches are the founders of marriage, so I just need to say, “Homosexuals, go invent your own union and leave ours alone.”
Ron Paul believes in states having the power, so yes he does vote against gay marriage in HIS state. That is his job.
It is easier to make a change in a smaller local government. Look at it like this:
In a federal government, you might have 2,000 people in your way, against what you want, but in a smaller local government you may only have 20 people in your way. Trust me, it’s a lot easier to push over 20 people rather than 2,000!
@ O-Douche
Ron Paul’s beliefs repress women? Your beliefs repress unborn children, oh wait, they kill babies.
Go Ronny!
Comment by Adam & Amber — October 9, 2007 @ 1:10 am
Churches invented marriage? There was no marriage before the Catholic Church? Non-Christians don’t get married? Are you people really this stupid?
This isn’t about names, this is about rights.
You can only push people out of your way when those people are accountable, which means they can be held up to public scrutiny. Try holding up to public scrutiny a councilman who has lunch with the Mayor every week and the editor of the only paper in town. Federal officials are a lot easier to hold to public scrutiny because there’s a much bigger audience.
Comment by O_Deus — October 9, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
I am married and heterosexual and have absolutely nothing against gay marriages, and believe they should be on equal footing. I am terribly perplexed as to why this is even a question at all. Most everyone I know thinks the same way, except for some of my religious friends. I don’t mind if Ron Paul is personally not in alignment with Gay Marriage, as long as he would recognize it as a freedom that is the right of every individual. I can accept one’s heart to be different. I just want their reason and sense of justice to win over their heart and personal leanings.
It is unfortunate in the sense that Paul’s libertarian-constitutional approach fits well with the legislative choices he has made to date, whether he is actively for or against gay marriage. I believe people are questioning his heart.
In light of all this, I do hope he wins. I see his ideologies very similar to my own. I would hate to say 9 out of 10 aren’t bad, but I see no other alternative besides not voting.
Whoever you vote for, vote with your conscience. I can understand those fighting for this equal right in marriage to hesitate and have question with a politician’s heart, or a politician’s politics, if it rules over their sense of reason and justice.
Question: Does Ron’s sense of reason and justice trump his heart on this issue? I cannot say with absolute certainty, but hope beyond hope it does for the POTUS. The decision is yours and I fully understand anyone who chooses not to vote for Paul based on the question of his heart with this issue.
I will vote for Paul; and hope many others will do the same. And yes, the Question is still on my mind. But I still hope, and I still believe his sense of liberty and freedom will win over all hearts, including his own.
Comment by JKman — October 19, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Ron Paul a wacky-assed libertarian cracker who wants Texas to be its own independent republic with a working constitution and ten acres of land for every cornpone whitebread crackerassed white Texan.
Womenfolk should be birthing the fine, strapping blue-eyed babies and teaching them the gospel of Our Lord Jesus H. Christ and currency should be abolished, since the American dollar is chock full of detection devices and tracking chips. Further, the government is using pollution techniques to chemically alter your brain and allow them to have MIND CONTROL, so be sure to use special, libertarian-approved water filtration devices, and grow all of your own produce. Never flush your turds, because they’re sent straight to a specialized government lab to analyze the foods you eat and gauge the ebb and flow of consumer spending, thus affecting price increases. Instead, take your turds out on moonless nights and burn them and scatter the ashes on private, libertarian-owned land. Send all blacks to Africa. Give everyone guns and refuse to carry the identification cards that are mandated by the US Fascist Regime. Buy and keep gold, and use it for trade. Drinking colloidal silver may turn your face purple, but it’ll deflect the radio waves from government installed but Nike-owned satellite’s that beam messages into your head and tell you to buy shoes, listen to rap music, crave large juicy booties and eat Twinkies. 9/11 was faked. Moon landing was faked. JFK is alive. When you get your dog vaccinated, they’re actually bugging it with listening devices. Purchasing toilet paper assists the surge of the invading Chinaman.
That’s Ron Paul.
Comment by J — November 16, 2007 @ 6:35 pm