84 votes

Does Ron Paul Support Gay Marriage?

Thanks Dr. Paul for giving us the Libertarian perspective


Dr. Paul gives a more elaborate explanation to Cavuto on Obama's Gay Marriage Statement, 5-9-12:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

No to legalizing...

...gay marriage, then.

For the government to stay out of the business of marriage, that means "NO" to gay marriage laws also. The homosexuals who claim to support Dr. Paul's views cannot have it both ways.

It's not really fair to imply

It's not really fair to imply that all "homosexuals who claim to support Dr. Paul's views" are in support of gay marriage. I happen to be one of them myself. Ideally, the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all and I think the best way to finally settle this debate is to un-define marriage. However, I certainly am not going to be against a state or the feds legalizing gay marriage. While I might disagree with the fundamental premise of the law, it would still be a better expansion of liberty than what we have now.

It seems obvious to me.

Why does ANYONE want the government defining their relationship? Now the flip side of this.... There is still biology, and sperm + ova = offspring, and that biological unit has traditionally been called a "family" and variations from that model were given hyphens - step and in-law. I understand that a real family is much more than biological bonds, but I also understand that trying to "undefine" biology is not going to work. Truth, that is where we find "compromise" worth compromising for. I am not even trying to say a biological family is better than a "blended" family, or whatever, it just is a specific thing biologically and to be able to communicate clearly, it deserves a word, too.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Does Sonya Sotomayor Agree with Paul?

This is from today's transcript of the DOMA case:

"But what gives the Federal Government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is? " - Sotomayor

This is how the decision should come out but it wasn't an option

presented as far as I can see.

It is the result that makes sense, though.

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

This is a serious post...

As a thought exercise, I've been thinking of alternative situations where marriage could be expanded/modified in the future. Though these may seem preposterous to suppose, please follow the train of thought:

Person + Person + Person... (multiple people in one marriage)
Person + Animal
Mother + Son, or Father + Daughter
Brother + Sister, etc.
Child under 18 + Person over 18
Child under 18 + Child under 18
Person of Race #1 + Person of Race #2 (there used to be laws against this...?)

I haven't done my research, but I think laws currently prohibit these relationships, but I wonder if that would ever change in the future. There were laws against homosexuality in the past, even DOMA could be considered a modern example. That has changed due to the shifting of public opinion, IMO. I believe interracial marriage was prevented in the past (some states), but eventually changed. Again, lacking research.

The thought experiment was to consider if any of the above might ever become a reality due to the same reason. It kind of feels weird to think of those or other similar situations arising, but I have to believe that it *could* be possible if public opinion swayed to that spectrum. Am I incorrect in feeling that way? Is government just setup to allow/enforce contracts between individuals, whatever they may be? How does gov't decide what is allowable vs. unallowable, right vs. wrong, correct vs. incorrect? Is it simply based upon the consensus of the governed?

Appreciate folk's responses.

Children cannot

enter into contracts and neither can animals.

I suppose polygamous contracts of consenting adults could be valid, as well as incestuous ones. However, incest can result in medical problems for offspring, so incestuous intercourse if I'm not mistaken is considered a crime.

that is actually not true

18 is not a universal minimum age for marriage (if we are defining 18 as legal adult)
Every country has a different law, and different states have always had different laws about this which have changed over time.


is not true?

I didn't say anything about age 18. I said children can't enter into contracts. I'm also not interested in other countries, I'm interested in the US.

you should look up the state laws

Look up the laws in the US; most states have provisions that allow for persons to marry under age 18, and you are generally considered a non-adult, i.e., child, until you are 18. The only point I am making is that you cannot really make simple assumptions about laws, especially in the US where every state is doing something different.

Dr. Paul

nailed that answer! Man it was good seeing him in debate format again.

Ron Paul supports gay marriage like he supports the FED

Big No

He is for state rights on the issue legally.

But ultimately Paul said no government state or Federal should be in the marriage business, should be left up to churches, private agreements, private institutions.



Satanists promote homosexuality because it is dysfunctional & pe

rverse. Gay activists talk about "normalizing" their gross-out sexuality and "de-sensitizing" straights by flaunting it. Gay and feminist activists think traditional morality was invented to perpetuate an unjust status quo. In fact, morality is the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding what is healthy and ultimately fulfilling. Perversion is deviation from what is healthy.
Heterosexual morality places sex in the context of love and/or marriage because it "humanizes" the sexual appetite. It ensures that the most profound and intimate physical act between two people expresses a commensurate emotional-spiritual bond. This is the only way sex can be truly satisfying for both men and women. It is also healthy for society because it provides for the natural and necessary outcome of sexual love, children. With Hugh Hefner's help, Alfred Kinsey detached sex from love and procreation. He reduced it to another physical function like urinating. Homosexuals seem to champion anonymous bathroom sex; some fornicate through a hole in a cubicle wall. Most have 10s -100s of partners each year. In less extreme form, this is the model heterosexuals have adopted. Recently a social columnist at the National Post enviously described straight couples she knows who have just broken up: "they're out partying, having the time and the sex, it seems of their lives." In conclusion, the "sexual revolution" was really a triumph of perverse homosexual norms and values. The gay-feminist agenda is to redefine healthy as deviant and vice-versa and they have succeeded. In forty short years, almost all sexual constraints have dissolved and heterosexual society is reeling. The cultural and social breakdown will only get worse. We need a counterrevolution: http://henrymakow.com/playboy-and-the-homosexual_re.html#sth...


Thanks for the info, Adolph

I suppose you'll soon be implementing your plan to raise up the Master Race after that delightful post.

I'm sure folks who hate and fear anyone who is different from your übermensch ideal will line up to slap you on the back and say "great post".

Great post man!


FLIN---couldn't agree more

I wish it wasn't true, but if you look at Infowars & what Paul Joseph Watson posted yesterday on the Bohemian Grove, it made me literally SICK! I looked up the gay porn star's name on yahoo images & saw things my poor eyes had never seen before in my life. When I think of what is going on to "validate" this, it makes me so sad. Instead of validating this, we should be trying to help those get OUT of what they are doing. So many of these men/women had major troubles in their youth. Many who came to SFrancisco & other big cities were abducted, drugged, and forced into the humiliation of it all. Once there, it was hard to turn back! Many were sexually abused as children by the same sex. It's awful, and to think we, as a society, have allowed these people to adopt is, well, beyond all sanity.

I'd love to know what you expected

to get by searching for images of a gay porn star.


I expected to see just a photo of what he looked like! The last thing I expected to see ON YAHOO IMAGES was X-rated crap!! Are you kidding me! That's crap, and to think young people are exposed to this vulgarity.

did you have 'safe search' turned off?

by default yahoo censors image results. I've just searched 'sex' and I get this message:

Results for sex may contain adult oriented content. Safe Search must be turned off to display these results.

you can change it here: http://search.yahoo.com/preferences/

all governments should be out of the marriage question.

It is not a state function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage and they determined what it was. For 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claimed that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married. When the goverment is involved in the liscencing of marriage they can now because they give the parents the license to marry take away the kids from the parents and they know more about the spouses and put that information in a database and they put the information from the health testing on you in a database. Know they put the information you gave them for your license and your license in a database. This if a very good reason for governments getting out of the marriage business. It is a privacy issue. You do not want a totalitarian government. John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Personal Freedom, Drugs, Prostitution and Gay Marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M


So naturally you'll be

So naturally you'll be calling your elected representatives tomorrow demanding that married heterosexual couples stop receiving benefits for getting married and popping out kids like popcorn, right?

Equal rights for all, special

Equal rights for all, special rights for none.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

"Caused More Trouble Than Necessary"

How about this and immigration are singlehandedly losing the White House and Senate. Is there anyone outside of Westboro that thinks this is worth letting Obama run the country for another four years?

Ron Paul supports ending the

Ron Paul supports ending the Fed and the Supreme Court so issues like these would be a non issue.

the majority of the gays do not support or want gay marriage.

I know this for sure because I have friends who are homosexuals who have told me this. So it is anti libertarian gay marriage because it would be creating something that the majority of people is for do not want or support.


that's what we call anecdotal

that's what we call anecdotal evidence. doesn't mean much.

Gay French leader denounces gay marriage

"I am French, I'm gay. Most homosexuals do not want marriage or adoption." So said Nathalie Willencourt, the founder of Homovox, a group that advocates the rights of homosexuals. Contrary to the claims of the secular media, Willencourt believes that most homosexuals, including herself, want neither marriage nor the adoption of children and thus disagree with the bill President François Hollande says he will sign that would normalize homosexual marriage. In an interview with Tempi – an Italian website – Willencourt said, “A homosexual couple is different from a heterosexual couple because of the following simple detail: we do not create life.”Williencourt stated "I'm French, I'm gay. Most gays do not want or marriage, or adoption of children, and especially not want to be treated the same as heterosexuals because we are different. We do not want equality, but we do want justice.”: http://www.speroforum.com/a/VCBKGCKLGX7/73853-Gay-French-lea...


Attention Nathalie Willencourt

C'est ce que nous appelons des preuves anecdotiques. Ne veut pas dire grand-chose.