0 votes

Dr. Ron Paul on Gay Marriage Legislation

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul's position on the role of federal judges in the gay marriage debate.

by Jake Morphonios | Nolan Chart
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul does not believe that the issue of gay marriage is a matter to be decided at the federal level. He has said that the effort of a federal official to change the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." He stated further, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." The issue of gay marriage is one to be decided at the state-level by the citizens of the state, as the people of California did when they passed Proposition 8. Ron Paul supported the Defense of Marriage Act to ensure that the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause continued to allow one state to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.

Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Had this legislation passed, today's headlines might have been different.

Today a federal judge in San Francisco, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that the California Constitution violates the US Constitution by refusing to recognize gay marriage. While opponents of homosexual marriage are disappointed, some are breathing a sigh of relief. The ruling, which favors gay Americans, is unlikely to result in the kinds of violence, personal intimidation and property destruction perpetrated by pro-gay activists relating to the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot initiative.

more here;


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Equal protection clause

This is a constitutional issue if you don't consider homosexuality a choice made by deranged perverts, but natural. Discriminating against homosexuals by giving heterosexuals preferential treatment violates the equal protection clause.

Obviously the state should not be in the business of providing benefits (such as right to estate, hospital visitation, joint-something or other) to people who make these love-pacts, but since they are they have to give it to the gays as well. A domestic partnership in California is not equal to a marriage, therefore unconstitutional. Just like segregating schools...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

can all the 'married' people in the room

please explain to my why youve chosen to contractually 'marry' in the first place?

Gays should be so lucky as to be the only folks restricted in most states from entering into such a contract.

A poster below askes why cant marriage contracts be individualized just like every other contract and not one-size-fits-all. - Well i agree! Make your own contract if youre worried about posessions and kids in case you split.

Are the federal and state privileges of having a 'marital' status really that amazing?

How can a "Federal" judge rule

on an issue that does not exist in the Federal Constitution ?

This article proved who's the bigot and who's not!

"While opponents of homosexual marriage are disappointed, some are breathing a sigh of relief. The ruling, which favors gay Americans, is unlikely to result in the kinds of violence, personal intimidation and property destruction perpetrated by pro-gay activists relating to the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot initiative."

Only pro "gay" activists uses violence, intimidation, threats and other unethical methods to achieve their goal. Their ways are not unlike the Muslims and Socialists in general. They accuse the anti "gay" group of being bigots but in reality, they are the one that will do all the dirty things to get their way.

So who are really the bigots here is clear. When Christians are being ridiculed on the media, you don't hear Christians rioting and killing people. When a law is passed or a ruling goes against Christians, you don't hear riots and destruction of properties and death threats, etc.

But when a certain "prophet" is ridiculed, then his peaceful followers riot and killed hundreds of people, destroy properties and spread death threats all over the world. And when the voters of California decided on keeping marriage what it is, you have pro "gay" "activists" sending out people's names, rioting, destroying private properties, harassing, intimidating people who do not believe in what they believe in.

I think it is very clear now who are the real bigots. They may come in different shape and forms, but they all act the same way!

Some people have been so indoctrinated all their life

that they just "must" win or they feel like less of a person..It doesn't matter to me if a person wants to be a married gay . It doesn't prove a thing. But do not tell me I need to give YOU special rights. I don't need to give you anything of the sort.
Of course you can always FORCE me to comply.

That will build good will. NOT

what on earth are you talking about?

what on earth are you talking about?

I think we can agree that there are bigots on both sides

And sadly it seems like that's how it's always going to be.

The question is what the non-bigots choose to do. Will they stand up for the liberty of any person (gay, straight, whatever) to marry any other consenting adult (gay, straight, whatever) they want, and not get discriminated against by the government? Will they allow the government to give benefits to one group of Americans while denying it to others?

Sure, we should fight to get the government out of marriage altogther. But as long as marriage laws are on the books, will we sit by and let the government enforce them in a discriminatory manner?

Gangs - Unions - and Religion are all Gov't

....all Gov't licensed, backed, and welfarized.

Did you know that one of the original Black P-Stones actually received Gov't Grants (in excess of millions of dollars) for "community projects" that went directly toward building up a massive army of militant gang bangers?

Are you aware that this is "regime" change tactics?

This is why no "group" can defeat Corporatism
---Only individualism (localism, non-participation, conscious-consumption) can work.

Well I guess they could turn the left hand against the right, but I see that as being very costly, smile.

The Only Source of Just Power

The Only Source of Just Power
"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

When the Majority is Wrong
"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1800

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820

"Against such a majority we cannot effect [the gathering them into the fold of truth] by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

Where did I say that?

Where, where, where. Please show me.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

Marriage = Personal, Religious

I have never understood why the government - state OR federal - feels the need to involve itself in marriage at all. Oh yeah, income tax cuts. That's right. The unconstitutional income tax and the cuts provided to married people is the main reason "legally recognized marriage" is attractive. I think I've found the root of the problem...

I am not going to debate "common law marriage," because I honestly don't know enough about it to do so. I do know that it's really the only law surrounding marriage that can touch two people of opposite sexes who live together. (Already that sounds a little creepy...) Any other state recognized marriage has to be invited. That, to me, seems kind of dumb.

I think that if two consenting adults wish to marry, there shouldn't even be a debate involving government. To argue that allowing same-sex marriage would destroy the meaning of marriage in America is flimsy. Same-sex marriage no more destroys the meaning of God's idea of marriage than promiscuity destroys God's idea of sex - or legal divorce, for that matter. We all know what Jesus said about that.

I'm glad Ron Paul is supporting the states, and will not vote either way on same-sex marriage on the federal level, but I would really like to see state-recognized marriage erased all together.

State Privlige issue - does not belong to fed's

10th Amendment issue, same as drug legalization etc.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

The Constitution itself is a contract too.

The federal government and the States are bound by that contract. So what happens if one of the parties violates the contract, for example if a State violates the 2nd amendment by passing a law making gun ownership completely illegal within its borders? What happens if a State decides to allow black slavery and passes laws to make it legal to own black slaves and to enforce such slavery?

Would not federal courts have the power to strike down state laws that violate provisions of the US Constitution that protect individuals from the tyranny of state governments such as the examples above? Some provisions of the US Constitution specifically prohibit the federal government from actions, like the 1st amendment which clearly prohibits the federal government from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech, religion, etc. Other provisions protect us from all government intrusions like the 2nd amendment does. And let us not forget that one of the purposes stated in the preamble is to protect freedom.

So the 10th amendment does not grant carte blanche to State governments to violate provisions of the US Constitution or to thwart one of the intended purposes of the Constitution, the blessings of liberty. And if there is a question of 10th amendment rights versus liberty, then we should error on the side of liberty.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

The federal government and the States are bound by that contract


They are BOUND?

That is news to me.

From where I sit, both sides, but more notably the federal side, have violated that contract over and over.

That is the truth. If you want to start with a premise, that would be the very foundation to start with.

The constitution has been shredded. It now exists as a faint set of ideals, despite the currently in-vogue propensity of Fox News to mention constitutionality all day every day.

From my perspective, the constitution has been destroyed and its original intent is never coming back.

Therefore when states assert their power, it has very little to do with constitutionality. Sure you will see a sideshow or circus play out in the media, covering all the "constitutional" issues.

Every entity will attempt to assert its rule and all of them will point to the same shredded and dead document as the source of their justification and rightness.

When AZ says they want to have their own immigration laws, I disagree with the details greatly, I still hope the fed fails.

When another state says they want to regulate guns, more heavily then most, I think its a bad idea, but I hope the fed fails on any kind of intervention, including protecting gun owners from a federal level, overriding the states rights.

When California decides to allow gays to get married in the traditional sense, then I support that too, even though I believe that government has no place in marriage.

If this sounds like the "state is always right" then that is one perspective. It would be missing the big picture.

The big picture is, that states must reassert themselves. That is priority number one. Will there be examples of this where the local results are undesirable to some? Absolutely. But that will always be true. Thats called the freedom to be locally ruled.

It as its advantages and disadvantages.

and I know, and everyone here should know which one outweighs the other.

I am keenly aware of how the machinery operates around me, and the difference between reality and idealism.

but the constitution is dead. that is reality.

is the machinery still pretending that the constitution is relevant? sure.

but in my heart, the constitution holds nothing for me.

the supreme court has nothing for me.

the federal government is a massive drain of resources.

yea. if I were to pick a document, I would pick

The Declaration Of Independence.

That one stirs my heart. It motivates me to act locally, and stay involved.

reedr3v's picture

At minimum we should "err" on the side of

Liberty. Of course the Feds shouldn't be involved in personal decisions. But I also see no reason the states should be involved in peaceful personal decisions either.

Minarchists need to beware they don't get swept into presumptions of assume any government control over peaceful individuals.



If there were no government, this would not be an issue.

Imagine for a moment that we had no government. There would be no state issued standardized marriage contracts. There would be no difference in taxation of of single or married individuals because there would be no taxes. Employers would unlikely provide medical insurance, because it was the tax code that encouraged that by giving a deduction to the employer without the benefit being taxed to the employee, but if they did provide benefits, this would be privately negotiable as part of employment negotiations. "Divorce" would be governed by the terms of private contracts and disputes would be handled by private arbitration.

The contract between individuals would be only the business of the individuals involved who lived together and not the business or others. Whether you called their contract a marriage contract, a cohabitation agreement, a partnership agreement, or any other name would be insignificant.

So what is it that upsets people today about who marries whom? Since we do have government and all the evils that result therefrom, if we want to pretend that we are free and live in a just society, shouldn't all couples who choose to live together have available to themselves the same treatment from government as any other couple.

I think it is religious dogma that creates in the minds of some these bedroom control issues. And for others it is fear and repression of their own secret homosexual tendencies that drives them to advocate freedom for all except gays and lesbians.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

One contract for ALL--- is the problem with State or Federal


I don't believe its a good thing to make a one size fits all contract... All other contracts are privately and individually made between two parties..... why can't marriage contract be the same? ...

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Why do people

care about this issue? Who cares if gays get married? I don't. If you think it is a moral issue it is their moral issue not yours. Get over it. What do they get? Amarraige that is recognized,the same tax benefits, the right to be at each others death bed. Hoe does that hurt you? If it is because you think God will punish the country you are silly. If he has a problem with them he will deal with it. He never gave you the right to judge or even decide the tax code or tell anyone who to love and share your life with. It is not ALL about sex any more than in a heterosexual marraige. People should get there mind out of other peoples bedrooms. What if 2 heterosexuals want to share their lives and even adopt children or share finances? Is that a problem? Shouldn't be. Whats next> you have to marry to live in the same house or have someone unrelated to you share your life. What if you are best friends with no biological family? I can't believe people waste their time on this.

You're Right

It has been legal here for several years, the sky hasn't fallen yet. I doubt if there are many gays who have gotten married however it has been good for tourism.
There were religious groups who put up a squawk at first but they have since found other issues to beat their drums about. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mention it. As someone said, the whole marriage industry was pretty gay anyway.

I'm not sure this article is correct.

I thought Ron voted against DOMA. No?

His overall view is that this is a state issue, yes, and not a governmental issue at all but a religious issue. I believe it is the freedom of religion issue that concerns him. Some religions would recognize gay marriage, others wouldn't, and the state should not be in a position of requiring religions to do anything in terms of their sacraments. Having the government use a different term for unions with legal significance everyone, gay or straight, would work. Then marraige would revert to religious and community significance.

It is hard to see how the Constitution could ban a law that widely existed at the time it was written. On the other hand, it is scary for government to have the power to treat different classes of citizens (other than minors and criminals) differently.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Links to RP's Thoughts on This Issue

Ron Paul was not in Congress when DOMA was voted on. But, despite his opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment, he said he would have voted for DOMA had been in Congress at that time.


DOMA has two purposes:

1. To limit the interpretation of any existing federal laws concerning marriage to apply to traditional one man, one woman marriage.

2. To prevent one state from being forced to recognize a gay marriage license granted in another state.

Here RP gives his reasons for voting for the Marriage Protection Act:


Of course, marriage is only between a man and a woman. No government or man-made law can ever change that. Government should not be giving people either incentives or disincentives to get married. Giving people tax breaks, regulations (some people like that marriage is regulated) or other benefits for getting married is wrong. But it is worse to give homosexuals these benefits because it subsidizes an unnatural, unhealthy, and abominable behavior. It is not ridiculous to say that God will pour out his wrath on this nation if we do not wake up and repent of this wickedness. The Bible makes it clear in first chapter of Romans that those who condone are not guiltless.

And Proposition 8 does not even ban homosexual behavior! A gay couple can live together, have joint bank accounts and as much sex as they want in California under this law. "Legalizing gay marriage" is all about subsidizing sinful behavior.

heard on the radio yesterday

heard on the radio yesterday that the judge is a sodomite.

Stand up to Vandals

I don't understand why there isn't more outrage at the vandalism, theft, and voter intimidation caused by these people. Imagine if white voters were harrassing black voters over voting a certain way... spray painting hate messages on their church doors... blocking the streets and demanding that blacks vote in favor of legislation we favor...

Why are we putting up with homosexuals doing the same kind of things to non-homosexuals? Why isn't this bigger news?

I don't care if people call me homophobic. I will stand up to any fool who thinks he can intimidate me or my family to vote they way he wants .. on any issue.

The rule of law is too

The rule of law is too important to allow the Federal government to take over state marriage policies. At the state, level, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE, PERIOD!

Ventura 2012



You miss the point

He is not denying the rights of any individual here. As a believer in the constitution all he is saying is that the federal government does not have the authority to define an issue such as this. He is absolutely right, any powers not directly given to the federal government and reserved for states to decide.

America fought a war over this, and don't believe the lie of many institutions that it was fought over slavery. That was only a part of the bigger question at hand. It was a war over states rights, which is exactly what this issue is about, and it was a war which the states lost.

If a state gives a tax break

If a state gives a tax break to one type of couple but not another...

If a state creates different rules of inheretence depending on whether your significant other is of the same or different sex as you....

If a state gives visitation rights to one type of couple but not the other...

... it has two choices. First- get rid of those priveleges entirely, for everyone. Second- give them to everyone, regardless of the type of couple that they are.

If the state continues to discriminate against certain couples by giving special privleges to some people but not others, then it is appropriate for the federal court system to take up the case on 14th amendment grounds.

'States rights' only goes so far. Yes, there are a ton of state powers that the federal government tramples on every day. But states do not have a right to create inherently discriminatory laws, even if the majority wills it.