Explore Candidates → Ron Paul on Gay Rights
Ron Paul on Gay Rights
Q: If elected will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage? PAUL: ...I do not see any need for another constitutional amendment. I think we have fallen into a trap where we have to redefine marriage. We're on the defensive trying to redefine marriage. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary and find out what marriage says. For federal legal purposes the Defense of Marriage Act is proper and it takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at the state level like the Constitution says.
Voted AGAINST the 2006 Marriage Protection Act (H.J. Res. 88), which proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage.
"Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."
"The inference here about [gay] marriage... [the founding fathers] never addressed it. There's no federal authority, no federal government authority, no constitutional authority to deal with those problems. There are no prohibitions for the states to do it, so that is perfectly alright."
"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! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power."
"Marriage only came about, and getting licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons... [I believe] that marriage is a church function, it's not a state function, I don't think you need a license to get married."
"All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities - it leads us astray. So it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life, if they do no harm you don't try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values. But you can't do it through legislation because force doesn't work... A group can't force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group, so if a homosexual group wanted to enforce their way on us, there's no right to do that either."
"I think ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] is a decent policy... [If] there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."