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.

Be careful you don't put words in his mouth

He never said the words "gay marriage" what he did say is that the government should not be saying who is married and who is not. Ron Paul says personally he defines it as a man and a woman.

Here is the problem whether you want to admit it or not. Both sides, religious people and LGBT community want to use the federal government to force the other side to recognize and legitimize their views.
This is wrong in a free society.

Ron Paul explains in depth in his book. http://youtu.be/ztmfLME-k9g
I am perfectly ok with saying civil unions for all but that probably won't happen because of these two sides that don't understand the role of the federal government.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

I support gay marriage as

I support gay marriage as much as I support government regulated marriage.

Progressives need to think about what they are doing. If gay couples, who are generally from more affluent families, want to join legal union in all 50 states the federal government needs to consider all the deductions these couples will hold on to on their tax returns. These are millions of dollars that gay households will get back in tax returns for filing as a household instead of single independents, not acceptable at a time when 'everyone must pay their fare share'. These tax loopholes will funnel money away from driving down the deficit or creating jobs. Could LGBT couples be more heartless? While their selfish interests of being legally joined in marriage in this country, their greed to hold on to more of their income is hurting the homeless and less fortunate, which their tax money goes to support. So, to fix this, a new check box will be added on the 1040 form for "LGBT" couple filing jointly. If this box is checked, the couple will pay as much as they would if they filed separately. This will make things more equal. Also, an equality deduction will be available if the pigments in their skin are darker to a certain degree than Anglo-Saxons.

Southern Agrarian

I make a satirical post about

I make a satirical post about gay marriage and no one even downvotes it much less an upvote :(

Southern Agrarian


your satire was not well understood, obviously!


Your comment implies that you think being gay is a choice. As you say, "they have less chance going back straight if they get them young"? If being gay is a choice, then tell me when it was you decided to be straight. You must also acknowledge the fact that if it is a choice, you suppress any feelings you have toward the same sex because you "choose" to be straight.

Edit: This was a reply to beeman, but didn't get nested under his comment. Apologies.

As simple as his answer is.

As simple as his answer is. People are just too friggen stupid to understand it.

Here we are the Titanic has been torpedoed

The world is on the cusp of a intentional Rothschild engineered financial collapse and world war that may extinct the race.

And some guy who likes to have sex with other men wants to discuss the merrits of haveing some puppet shill government issue him a permission to marry certificate so somhow that will make his man on man sex act legitimage. How insane!


Don't you mean the Lusitania?

Don't you mean the Lusitania?

Southern Agrarian

If anyone actually read the book he is talking about

Marriage was first created as a state function in the United States in the early 20th century under the auspices of making sure everyone was healthy. It was the first example of a way for the local, state, and even federal government to create large lists of citizens. It was a red herring. That is one reason he wants government to have nothing to do with marriage.

tasmlab's picture

separating blacks and whites

I had read somewhere that the first marriage laws were mostly to stop blacks from marrying whites.

What you write makes sense too. It would also make sense to get ahead of tracking soon-to-be children

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

This went over like a fart in church

Ron Paul is a libertarian.. a libertine even. You won't see anyone like him in the public eye for a generation.


We need a term other than "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage," or it should be "so-called same-sex marriage," or something like that. "Same-sex marriage" is like saying it was a light-dark, wet-dry, day-night - it's a contradiction in terms or oxymoron. Marriage is one man, one woman, for life, and has been since Genesis 2:24. The government and the state media don't get to redefine the word, and we shouldn't use their terminology, either (pro-choice, gay, etc.)

I believe Laurence Vance is correct in saying there is no libertarian position on this subject any more than there is a libertarian position on chocolate, toothpaste or whether the sky is blue. Check out his comments on the subject:


No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

You don't have to call it "gay marriage"

if you don't want to, but that also means you don't get to determine how same sex couples define their own relationships or how they might define yours.

We need government completely out of the business of marriage. Leave it to religious/spiritual institutions to decide who they will marry. Let people define their relationships however they so choose. That way you don't have to accept a gay couple's title as being "married" as much as I don't have to accept gold digging bimbos "marrying" men old enough to be their grandfather as being "married". Everybody wins :)

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I don't understand a word you are saying

Since it's obvious you don't believe words have definitions and meaning in context, I don't understand a word you are saying. I guess I could interpret your statement as a recipe for chocolate pudding - would that be correct?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

That's quite the leap in logic there, buddy.

Where exactly did I say that words do not have definitions? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

Many words have changed in meaning over time. Sure, it may not do anybody any good if there aren't commonly accepted definitions, but to say that words being commonly used in a manner different from their original meaning is the same as words not having any meaning at all is pretty absurd.

I'm not saying you have to accept a change in the common definition of the word marriage if it comes to be used to refer to gay couple as well as hetero couples, or even a group of polygamists. But if that is indeed the way the definition is headed, there isn't really much you can do about it. That's why it's just best for the government to stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.

Your church that performed your marriage will have a set of standards for what they consider a marriage to be and they will only marry couples who have been determined to meet those qualifications. Isn't that preferable to the current government system of marrying pretty much anybody and everybody regardless of the purpose for their union and devoid any basis of a loving commitment to one another?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

How hard would it be...

...to actually get the government out of marriage completely, at least in one state? What would be the process to realistically start moving things in that direction?

I do agree with Dr. Paul that this is the best approach.

This current definition of

This current definition of "Marriage" issue is all about monetary benefits. Not one word about that in the news. Why can't we talk about that? I want to talk about the money involved.

Homosexuals are not gay

they have taken a word meaning happy go lucky into a perverse definition. If this is okay then the man boy love organization can come out of hiding.

Before most of you were born the Homosexuals used to prey on young boys, they know if they can get them young then less chance to go back straight. I think a lot of it is still going on but young teen boys are too embarrassed to talk about it.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Perverse Definition

Your comment tells about your prejudices toward homosexuals as it was not them who originally gave the word 'gay' meaning "full of joy, merry, light-hearted, carefree" so called a perverse definition. It was so called heterosexuals who did it as brothels were called 'gay houses' before homosexuals were called 'gays'.

And by the way every new definition of a word is in a certain sense always a perversion as it undoes or destroys the original definition meaning the etymological origin. In the etymological sense the word pervert comes from the Latin "per" meaning 'away' and "vertere" meaning 'to turn'. This means that every new definition turns away from the earlier one which means it always perverts the earlier definition unless of course the new definition turns the meaning back toward its etymological origin. But at same time of course language is a living phenomenon in which all the words are getting new meanings and turning away from their previous meanings. So the whole movement of language is a totally pervert process.

And still one important fact for you: did you know that originally in America the word 'heterosexuality' was defined as a 'sexual perversion'.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

41 years ago a so called gay introduced himself

to a young man (12 years old) gave him whiskey and dirty porn. I don't need to explain what happened next it screwed up this young man for a long time. About 8 years later this young man became homeless for a short time, I assure you the gay people will take advantage of young homeless people people faster than anyone. They know the young homeless are easy pickings for whatever perverse thing in mind.

As you figured this young man was myself many years ago, and I have had homosexual friends in my past. I just would never trust one with my children alone.

Also it is not natural to be attracted to the same sex. always opposites attract. This is natural science, two magnets opposites attract and the same repels.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Thanks for the info. "Facts"

Thanks for the info. "Facts" don't mean much to the gay haters. Propaganda and blind servitude to a God that wants them to mimic himself is what seems to drive them. In some ways, I feel bad for them. They're slaves to a God who hates them so much he doesn't even grant THEM LIBERTY. :(

In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Well, "servitude to God" in the name of the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT (which in Latin is masculine) sounds pretty gay to me as a man.

So would that mean that, if Christianity is understood as a worship/adoration/love of male God in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is a religion of so called heterosexual women and homosexual men? Just a question to be pondered!

If I would be a Christian as a so called heterosexual man I definitely would prefer to love and worship female God in the name of the Mother, the Daughter and the Holy Ruach (the Hebrew word for the Spirit in the Old Testament which was feminine).

Anyway my Confession of the Day is taken from great Luis Bunuel: "I am an atheist by the Grace of God."
And my Prayer of the Day is taken from great Christian (Catholic) Mystic Meister Eckhart: "I pray God to rid me of God."

This could also be a prayer that would free gay hating Christians from their hatred of homosexuals. Let us all pray today: "God, rid us of God", that is, rid us from all our theologies of God, especially the ones which makes people hate each other, or makes them define others as perverts even if by that definition God Himself is the biggest pervert there is as he created homosexual behavior which can be found all around the activities of different species of animals. My male dogs are all the time licking each other's genitals and anuses. They are part of God's creation. Oh, dear God why did You create dogs to lick each other all the time?!? But wait a minute: maybe there is a true spiritual teaching hidden in this creation which seems so perverted from a narrow human perspective as the Ways of God are Unknown. And the more narrow minded a person is the more Unknown the Ways of God remain.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--


When you try to tell anyone what religion they should practice, in our country, you are denying the rights spelled out by the first amendment! Homosexual marriage cannot be a Christian thing. We have been taught it is an abomination.

We are also told not to judge and that is God's job. So, I won't tell homosexuals they can't get married as long as they don't try to tell me how I can believe! That is not Constitutional!

Really what?

I don't exactly know what are you referring to in my comment.

But I try to guess and if I guessed wrong, then maybe you can tell me what I guessed wrong.

How did I "try to tell anyone what religion they should practice"? How am I "denying the rights spelled out by the first amendment!"

Still I don't understand what you mean by your headline "Really?!"
What does it refer to in my post?

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

From what I understand...

The first amendment guarantees the government cannot interfere in the way I choose to practice my religion. But, it also says no one can obstruct the "free practice thereof". I interpret that as the amendment telling the government that it cannot deny the right of others to practice Judaism, Christianity, Islam or freedom from religion (atheism). Using my religious views to obstruct gays from being married (an abomination according to my Bible) is still against the first amendment. That is the true separation of church and state. We cannot legislate morality. And, we, especially, cannot legislate religion. The founding fathers knew what they were doing!


I don't have any clue what does this what you write to me now have to do with my comment to which you replied bit earlier with a title "Really!?"

I still don't understand "really" what? I don't understand what does this your "Really!?" refers to? So "really" what? And I still don't understand at all how did I "try to tell anyone what religion they should practice"? And how am I "denying the rights spelled out by the first amendment!"

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

first and foremost

Ron Paul is a Christian. He, personally, would vote no on it because of his faith. Aecondly, he would vote no, as the video stated, because the government should not and does not have the right to tell an individual what marriage is and is not.

No person can tell you what marriage is and is not to you. As a Christian myself, I stand with Ron Paul 100% on how he addresses this issue.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" ~ Patrick Henry
"I have not yet begun to fight!" ~ John Paul Jones
"If it is treason, then make the most of it!" ~ Patrick Henry

SteveMT's picture

Dr. Paul gives a more elaborate explanation to Cavuto.

Ron Paul 5-9-12 on Obamas Gay Marriage Statement


Cyril's picture

Surprise, surprise...

Thank you, Steve.

And oh, surprise, surprise... Dr. Ron Paul makes the same point I was trying to make :

"LET TWO people define marriage".

CERTAINLY NOT the government.

Another way to look at it, as I do have a gay man in my own relatives, and I care for him, well, because he is family :

imagine a world where Agenda 21 has won and a law is passed where "all married couples have to pay a sustainable environment tax" ... just for that mere fact of union (because the bureaucrats decided they'd produce more CO2, by living in a formally committed union, or what else the hell I know...)

I don't think so many gay people will be as warm as some are today to be considered "married", as well, any longer.

Remember. The wind CAN ALWAYS turn with what Big State has in mind, with its planners, and its spreadsheets.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

If etymology doesn't matter any longer, ok, then... Go for it.

Maybe I'm just a stupid fool to care about language.

Also, in case one needs a refresher, there is a rather compelling strictly etymological case to make for "gay marriage" being rather inconsistent :


"Gay marriage"?

Why not "optional laws", then? Sounds silly, no?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius