PAGE THREE
 |  |  |  |  |  |
WOULD RON PAUL PROTECT MARRIAGE?
January 2, 2012 – According to a Boston Globe article posted Dec. 21, Ron Paul said he does not believe
the government should be telling us what marriage is all about. “You might have one definition. I have
another definition,” Paul said. He also said he did not support a constitutional amendment allowing or
forbidding same sex marriage.
January 2, 2012 – According to a Boston Globe article posted Dec. 21, Ron Paul said he does not believe
the government should be telling us what marriage is all about. “You might have one definition. I have
another definition,” Paul said. He also said he did not support a constitutional amendment allowing or
forbidding same sex marriage.
| REP. RON PAUL |
According to the Tampa Bay Times on Dec. 28, in the “Marriage” chapter
of Paul's book Liberty Defined, he writes that most Americans “do not
question the requirement to obtain a license to get married.” Ideally, he says,
each individual could define marriage as he or she pleases, so long as force is
not used to impose the definition on others. It's a matter of free speech, he
says, in keeping with the First Amendment. Paul also points out in his book
that some states recognize couples as married without requiring that they get
a license.
Paul has said, “My personal opinion is government shouldn't be involved.
The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions
and it was a private matter,” the Globe reported.
“If there’s a voluntary secular type contract versus a marriage contract, that’s
of Paul's book Liberty Defined, he writes that most Americans “do not
question the requirement to obtain a license to get married.” Ideally, he says,
each individual could define marriage as he or she pleases, so long as force is
not used to impose the definition on others. It's a matter of free speech, he
says, in keeping with the First Amendment. Paul also points out in his book
that some states recognize couples as married without requiring that they get
a license.
Paul has said, “My personal opinion is government shouldn't be involved.
The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions
and it was a private matter,” the Globe reported.
“If there’s a voluntary secular type contract versus a marriage contract, that’s
an agreement. You can go to court to resolve the differences and the arguments over it,” Paul said according
to the Globe.
Paul refers to the licensing mandate in another part of the marriage chapter, saying: “The best approach is to
make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government
expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the
ideas of liberty are advancing.
“Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their
standard,” Paul writes. “Both depend on the use of illegitimate government force.”
The Globe did report that Paul said although he personally thinks marriage is between a man and a woman,
regulations involving marriage should be up to the states.
Paul’s website, under a heading that reads, “Protect Marriage,” says he supports the Defense of Marriage
Act which, he says, “prevents a state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in
another state.” Presumably, though, the heading should read, “Protect State Sovereignty,” instead, because
in light of his other statements it seems he would support a state’s right to sanction same-sex marriage within
its borders, an action that attacks marriage in our society rather than protects it.
Hopefully, if made President, as a self-proclaimed champion of state’s rights, Paul would at least support
allowing states who hold more traditional views of marriage than his to define marriage as between one man
and one woman, as has been done for centuries.
to the Globe.
Paul refers to the licensing mandate in another part of the marriage chapter, saying: “The best approach is to
make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government
expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the
ideas of liberty are advancing.
“Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their
standard,” Paul writes. “Both depend on the use of illegitimate government force.”
The Globe did report that Paul said although he personally thinks marriage is between a man and a woman,
regulations involving marriage should be up to the states.
Paul’s website, under a heading that reads, “Protect Marriage,” says he supports the Defense of Marriage
Act which, he says, “prevents a state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in
another state.” Presumably, though, the heading should read, “Protect State Sovereignty,” instead, because
in light of his other statements it seems he would support a state’s right to sanction same-sex marriage within
its borders, an action that attacks marriage in our society rather than protects it.
Hopefully, if made President, as a self-proclaimed champion of state’s rights, Paul would at least support
allowing states who hold more traditional views of marriage than his to define marriage as between one man
and one woman, as has been done for centuries.