« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Video: Ron Paul on Ron/Paul marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

Here is GOP candidate Ron Paul speaking on several issue, including gay marriage. Check it out (marriage comments begin at 3:41 mark)

Our thoughts:

1) The "definition that can be found in the dictionary," Ron? Come on, brotha. We actually have respect for your intelligence. Please don't dumb yourself down by making childish statements likes this. For you see, Ron, there is no one "dictionary definition" of marriage. Like with so many other concepts throughout history, dictionaries the world over have adapted to the changing times:


Making it seem as if marriage is such a simple matter that even a child with a dictionary can understand may play well with certain crowds. However, this nation needs a leader who will encourage reasoned consideration for all of society's inhabitants, not simplistic outlooks that say gays to fall outside the spectrum of normalcy.

2) As for the relating the state limits of marriage licensing and the state limits of doctor's licensing -- Well, that's completely irrelevant to the gay marriage discussion. For it's not just one specific group of doctors whose practices are only recognized on a state-by state basis; it's ALL doctors. Gay marriage, however, is a situation in which heterosexuals across the nation can get married in Hawaii and have it recognized in Kansas (just to name two states), yet gay couples who marry in places like Massachusetts remain legal strangers in their home states.

3) As for the idea that marriage is a "religious and personal matter" and that we shouldn't "have to defer to the state to decide who's married and who isn't" -- well, Ron, if this is TRULY how you feel, then you clearly do not understand what this whole debate is all about. First off, as we've discussed a gazillion times, we are seeking CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY. The religious component will and should always be left to the individual denominations and sects. However, in this nation and in its states, we have a currency in which we recognize and provide benefits to monogamous unions. We call that marriage. Marriage licensing is the current process through which heterosexual couples request those benefits, and it is the ONLY acceptable way for homosexual couples to do the same.

Now, if we're talking about an overhaul of the way we license and recognize unions in this nation, then we would be open to that. But what we don't get is how one could personally oppose same-sex unions, say marriage is "a state issue," and support DOMA, yet also want to get the government out of our bedrooms by eliminating state licensing and bringing marriage to a "religious and personal" level. Gay marriage bans of any type are the government entering our bedrooms to discriminate against certain couples! DOMA is the federal government looking at the state contracts that do exist and exalting some to a more legally recognizable level than others! It just seems a little out of whack that someone who seems to have such a problem with the marriage process as it currently exists seems to have no problem with the ways state and federal government discriminate based on the gender of the license applicants/ certificate holders. We realize that we're not articulating fully what we mean on this matter, but there just seems to be a disconnect between his varying marriage principles.

4) It is disgusting to hear any clearly intelligent person to justify their non-support for a constituional ban on same-sex marriage in any way other than, "NO WAY, IT'S INHUMANE, DISCRIMINATORY INDECENT, UNFAIR, AND THOROUGHLY UN-AMERICAN!" Mr. Paul is making it seem as if it's merely one option, the likes of which he has taken off the table simply out of concern that its unnecessary. A principled person who deserves to lead ALL of this nation's tax-paying citizens would take it off the table simply because its WRONG!

5) Ron, your tie is a pretty shade of blue.

Ron Paul NH Meet and Greet Part 7 [YouTube]

Technorati Tags:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Ron Paul on homosexuality:


Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 11:32:09 AM

He wants the government out of it. He does not think anybody, including us heterosexuals, should get permission or approval from the government.

But really, it's all about the draft for me this time around. It's pretty clear, now that even the Democrats admit they're not going to withdraw in their first term, that Ron Paul is the only person who is going to stop the war, and the obviously impending draft.

But hey - at least you'll get out of that, right? So you'll be around to fight for gay marriage rights.

I support you in your fight. I hope you can respect that because I have two adolescent male children, it can't be my priority this election.

Good things take time.

Posted by: ALexia | Oct 2, 2007 11:39:28 AM

Why are you bashing the most pro-gay Republican candidate running?

Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 11:41:48 AM

disinter: Bashing?!? Are you kidding me? Try disagreeing with his stance on a matter that affects us on a deeply personal level. What, should we just let him support marriage discrimination because he likes us more than Brownback? No thank you.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 11:45:32 AM

Alexia: Right, that's the reason why we see disconnect in his marriage stance. He seems to want the government out of it, yet fully supports DOMA. He's opposed to the FMA, but only because he finds it uneccessary to get the job done.

There certainly is a very long conversation that needs to be had about the way we recognize unions in this nation. But that complex matter will take eons before everyone is on even close to the same page. For now we need to eliminate the discrimination that is currently in place. And we will never apologize for speaking out against someone who COULD take a stand against that discrimination but chooses not to.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 11:54:27 AM

How the dictionary defined marriage before the sodomite revolution...

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children. (Source: Webster's 1828)

Posted by: Rufus | Oct 2, 2007 12:15:53 PM

Rufus: I'm sure you are quite proud of yourself and feel that you are making some kind of a point, but you are actually only justifying ours. Like everything, marriage has adapted to the wisdom of society. In 1828, many concepts were behind the times. Just look at the last sentence of the Webster's 1928 definition of slavery:

1. Bondage; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. Slavery is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract of consent of the servant. Slavery may proceed from crimes, from captivity or from debt. Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. Slavery no longer exists in Great Britain, not in the northern states of America.

The Southern states? Yea, they were still proudly owning slaves in that 19th century day! It's interesting to look back upon that, then turn to today and see in which states the issue of marriage equality is now being advanced and in which states discrimination is sticking around. Civil rights history seems to be somewhat repeating.


Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 12:30:06 PM

Ron Paul is an intelligent guy, well spoken; it’s easy to see why he is so popular among so many people. But I don't apologize nor compromise me sense of integrity when it comes to the man. If he is going to tow the line about being for the protection of the whole constitution while continuing to talk around certain issue that affect my community deeply, like DADT and compromise my civil liberties then he better expect to be called and criticized for it. Same-sex marriage isn't an issue that the gay community should simply compromise on for however is less discriminatory. If a republican candidate (as well the democrats for that matter) wants to pretend he’s in some way pro-gay, then they need to address issue of gay equity for what they are, issue that affect a community of citizens who continue to be discriminated against because they are a minority group. I grow increasingly tired of seeing politicians and presidential candidates address gay rights issue off hand, as if they’re a trivial nonsense or a “special interest” good for rallying votes. To be told to go with Ron Paul because he’s form a “different cut” of candidates, or because he is less discriminatory than other is to be told to compromise my integrity. He may recognize the constitution, I also happen to recognize I have rights under it.

As for the issue of how civil unions are recognized in this nation, if its being left to individual states then the law is being applied unequally. All you have to do is look out and recognize that none of the individual state allowing civil unions grant all the same legal rights they do to heterosexual couples. Ron Paul, and other, may think it should be left up to individual states to choose to recognize our rights but heaven knows if he was elected that marriage between a man and a women would still remain recognized federally, while same-sex unions were left up to whim of states to decided. Want to talk about unequal treatment under the law. But that’s not an issue for those who see us as trivial.

Posted by: Patrick B | Oct 2, 2007 12:32:08 PM

"Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership." - Ron Paul


Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 2:12:21 PM

G-A-Y writes: "For now we need to eliminate the discrimination that is currently in place."

The best way to do that is to get the government out of marriage.

Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 2:18:08 PM

disinter: Thanks for highlighting the problem. Anyone who links the fight for civil marriage equality to religion is not listening to what gay activists are truly seeking, and is instead pandering to the evangelicals.

And go to that full statement to which you link. Paul uses words like "moral and cultural decline" to refer to gay marriage. He is in no way our friend on this issue.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 2:20:51 PM

For Patrick:

"t is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades."

-- Ron Paul


Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 2:23:50 PM

G-A-Y - I am gay and my partner and I both strongly support Ron Paul. I am sorry you don't understand the proper role of government. It is sad you don't see the hypocricy in what you are preaching.

Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 2:26:07 PM

disinter: Add your own thoughts and commentary regarding Paul's words rather than just cutting and pasting pieces of his prepared statements. We know his positions -- we disagree with them. Tell us why we're wrong for doing so.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 2:27:14 PM

G-A-Y - You have a fundamental misunderstanding about rights, which I was trying to explain to you through Ron Paul's words. However, his writings may be too complex for you. Maybe you should try this for a brief 101 course:


Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 2:37:42 PM

disinter: Please, by all means, show us the hypocrisy. So far you have called him the "most pro-gay Republican candidate running" and only pulled some quotes from his canon of press statements.

So you're gay and your partner both strongly support Ron Paul. Mazel tov on that. However, many gays and their partners do not. And the thing is, this isn't even really a discussion about "the proper role of government." We have conceded that a discussion regarding how states recognize ALL unions would be a perfectly viable conversation to be had. But what we are talking about here is that (a) his positions seem out of whack in terms of his state rights support/ desire to get rid of licensing/ yet support of DOMA and marriage inequality, and (b) his support for marriage inequality, DADT, his introduction of the 'We The People Act,' and his failure to oppose marriage discrimination make him no friend of our community.

And stop telling us what we do and do not understand or trying to belittle anyone. We simply disagree with you.

You're a libertarian, yes?

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 2:40:40 PM

Libertarian, yes.

His uncompromised fight for *individual* rights (which you don't understand) is what makes him the MOST friendly to our community.

Again, try this:


Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 3:07:14 PM

Disinter/ Mike: Quit telling me I do not understand. I hear you. I have done mucho research on Paul and Libertarianism. I SIMPLY DISAGREE. And he could both support and strive for individual freedoms, yet still support the basic principles of fairness in terms of the systems we currently have in place (as many Libertarians do). The fact that he supports things like DADT and has used the terms that he has to refer to gay marriage (and I don't mean in terms of governance but rather in terms of the social impact such would have on society) is hostile towards the goal of equality for LGBT people.

I am friendly to much of the Libertarian cause. However, the only group of people who I find refuse to accept disagreement on forums like this one are Libertarians. Then if you stop trying out of frustration, they will act as if you simply don't have the tools to fight their wisdom and are conceding defeat. It's a really annoying trait that weakens discussion.

So with that, I'm out of this back and forth. I look forward to chatting with you more in the future, but this is a waste of both of our time.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 3:15:29 PM

Yes, we all know you "disagree", you have repeated that several times.

Now, please try educating yourself about the origin of rights so you don't appear to be such a hypocrit. That video link I sent twice is an excellent start.

Posted by: disinter | Oct 2, 2007 3:21:44 PM


I also support Ron Paul for president, but am not a libertarian.

I understand where you are coming from, however, if you look at it with a broad perspective you can probably see that if we are all given our constitutional rights all will work out in the end. Ron Paul, whether for gay marriage or not, is the best person we, as gays and as a country, can have as president. Please keep n mind that a president can not make gay marriage legal or not legal.

Also please keep in mind that there are many issues to consider when voting for a president. This is not all about us. I would certainly give up my right to be in a gay marriage for a few more years to save the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. Ron Paul is a start. I have learned in life that you sometimes must take baby steps. We live in a society that defines marriage as between a man and a women. Sad for us, but fact. Give it time. Believe me, you do not want another president who feels the federal government should have the ability to interfere so much in our lives.

Baby steps. We're getting there.

Rev. Mark

Posted by: Rev. Mark J. Seydel | Oct 2, 2007 3:53:42 PM

Rev. Mark: Absolutely 100% agree that there are issues more important than gay rights in the grand scheme of things. However, this is wholly a gay rights site. We never stray from gay issues. Discussing the candidates positions on this specific matter is what we do. Nothing should be construed as a denunciation of any of his other stances.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2007 3:58:43 PM


Posted by: anti | Oct 2, 2007 8:40:24 PM


Then how did Adam and Steve get here?

Posted by: Rev. Mark J. Seydel | Oct 2, 2007 9:00:26 PM


I'm sorry, I didn't see your last response to what I wrote. Thanks for the clarification :-)

Posted by: Rev. Mark J. Seydel | Oct 2, 2007 9:06:54 PM


Dr. Ron Paul wouldn't restrict gays from the military. He believes that it's a behavioral issue. If a heterosexual, in the military, causes disruption, the heterosexual should be dealt with. In the same time, if homosexual activity is causing disruption, then it should be dealt with. And what's wrong with that? Sound policy!

Posted by: Joseph the Libertarian | Oct 2, 2007 9:49:17 PM

"The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters"

Perhaps I don't view or believe the issue of being gay as simply that of a political matter. Perhaps the way gays are treated thought the United States is an issue of basic liberties and not simply a 'political matter' that should be left for each state to decide how there residence are treated. Or perhaps we should allow each state to vote to reinstitute segregation or Jim Crow laws, society in some ways still carries the prejudice in there roots so why not just make it legal again? If you can still legally discriminate against gays why not blacks? Maybe I just believe in something a little bigger than the rights of individual states to determine how it will institutionalize its bigotry and discrimination towards individual members of its population.

But then again Ron Paul, from his words you continue to quote, can’t seem to take into consideration why some would view his view of the "individual" state rights over the "individual" rights of the every citizen as being wrong. No, instead of addressing those concern he caries the weight of his argument on the inflammatory language of liberal, hostile pro-gay left.

Joseph the Libertarian,
"Dr. Ron Paul wouldn't restrict gays from the military. He believes that it's a behavioral issue."
I saw the video, thank you.

If he believed it was a simple issue of "behavior" (depending on how he defines it) then he would have no need to support the military policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But he does support (or at least does not support the repeal of) DADT, and thus he restricts gays from the military. Contrary to Ron Paul's side stepping argument about DADT, the policy is not about the actions or behavior of its soldiers, it’s about how a solider identifies him or her self. One does not need to do anything other than state or be openly gay to be discriminated against under the policy. If he truly believes that DADT is about behavior, as he asserted in the debate, then he would be saying that simply openly identifying as LGBT is a "disruptful behavior." So no, his continued support, and ignorant denial of what it stands for, is not sound policy.

Posted by: Patrick B | Oct 3, 2007 4:10:57 AM

Rev. Mark, how small a baby step are you willing to take. Jesus Christ, how much slower could gay people go in asking/demanding equal rights? As for your comment that there are more important issues; can you name me a single time in history that there HASN'T been "more important issues"? There will never be a "good" time, or the "right" time or a time where there aren't "more important issues". Please refrain from parroting the anti-gay, compassion troll talking points. As a man who is married to his partner of 16 years and raising a son in Florida with ABSOLULTELY NO legal protections I think these issues are pretty damned important and pretty damned urgent. I find your comment to be both ignorant and arrogant.

As for Ron Paul, and some of the others here posing as "Libertarians", they are full of it. Ron Paul is NO libertarian, he is a Christianist who picks and chooses off of the libertarian buffet when it doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs. His word parsing and double talk make this very clear.

Disinter, I also have a teenage son. I don't quite understand why you seem to think that fighting an impending draft and supporting/fighting for gay equality can't be done at the same time. I find you comment that "we" don't have to worry about being drafted, ignorant and insulting. Everyone knows that in the event of a draft they are going to suddenly have no problem with gay men in the military. We will be just as vulnerable to this dispicable practice as anyone else.

Some of the comments in this discussion show a deep level of either ignorance or stupidity. I sure hope it's just ignorance.

Try reading a book and/or getting your information from somewhere other than corporate owned mainstream media outlets and propaganda outlets like Fox.

Posted by: Zeke | Oct 3, 2007 6:26:22 PM

Sorry Disinter that comment was meant for Alexia, though I think some of your defenses of Paul, as a so-called libertarian, is more of a demonstration of your ignorance of what it means to be a libertarian than it is about G-A-Y's not understanding Paul's positions on a given issue.

You are too willing to allow Paul to set up straw man arguments that you are too lazy or too ignorant to challenge.

He claims that he has a libertarian view of marriage yet HE HIMSELF is married. He doesn't want to give gays the right to marry because he supposedly doesn't believe in state marriage, yet he doesn't have one word on his website about abolishing ALL state marriages.

He says he's against repealing DADT because he wants to be able to throw people out of the military for bad behavior but he hasn't proposed a method for holding straight soldiers to the same moral standards as gay soldiers.

He says a whole lot of things that make absolutely no sense under the least bit of scrutiny but yet people are eating him up JUST LIKE THEY DID BUSH IN 2000.

Posted by: Zeke | Oct 4, 2007 12:54:23 AM

As a gay person partnered for 30 years, should my partner pre-decease me, I will lose my home to FEDERAL estate taxes, due to the tremendous increase in property value since the original purchase. We have other friends who have gone through this misery - having to pay almost 50% on their deceased partner’s half of the property. Worse, should you live in a home your partner solely purchased, one is taxed on the full amount. In our case, our financial advisor tells us (as well as estate planners) that I will have to pay the Federal US government $2 million within 9 months of my partner’s death. I will have to sell our home to meet this Federal requirement. I bring up this issue since Ron Paul indicates that same-sex marriage/civil union matters be left to individual states. Will that also be the case for Federal estate taxes? Is he intending to repeal them? Not one candidate has mentioned this yet anywhere. It is a VERY important principle for us all. Ironically, President Bush (whom I detest) is the only president who has tried to repeal the estate (or “death”) tax. I distinctly remember him addressing a gay organization (several years ago) on this very issue, and he said “gay people should stick with me; I’ll repeal the death tax and you won’t have this problem any longer”. The year 2010 is the only year that the repeal will take place (due to his efforts).

If my partner and I were allowed to have a Civil Union recognized on the FEDERAL level (not State), the property would automatically pass to me, tax free, like any married couple. A man and woman can marry 5 minutes before the death of their spouse, and have these rights. For all the years I have been with my partner, as well as friends who have been together 40 and some over 50 years, there are absolutely no rights. A remote 4th cousin that we’ve never met (for example) would have more legal rights than me to my partner’s estate.

Not only does one lose one’s partner, but also the house you’ve shared for years. There is no solution; we have consulted high profile lawyers, as have our friends. Even if property is (at this point) transferred to a trust, capital gains taxes or gift taxes are involved. In our case, that means shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Federal Government to do so (which we cannot afford). When my partner’s estate is audited (should he pre-decease me), I can even legally be penalized with Federal gift tax for every year I have lived with him, since he earns more than me. Not to mention a pension, health coverage, social security, etc., that I will not be entitled to (issues even more important to a stay-at-home partner with children, should her/his partner die).

Civil unions (on a FEDERAL LEVEL, NOT STATE) would provide acknowledgment and thus protection from these unfair federal laws. I fear too many in the gay community do not understand the difference between Federal Civil Unions and state recognized same-sex marriages. State recognized same-sex marriages don’t offer much protection in many legal areas. State inheritance taxes are very low, and some states don’t have them at all. For old-timers like myself and many of my friends, same-sex marriage or civil unions is not about dressing in tuxedos, renting a limousine and throwing a party for our family and friends. It is about much more. Couples with children have even more complicated scenarios than my partner and I do.

I stress the use of the phrase “Federal” as opposed to “State” taxes, because this is where the bulk of same-sex issues lies. I find many people aren’t aware of these financial penalizations, since many people do not fall under the same tax bracket as we do. But many do - and many of you may also one day. It is one example of extreme discrimination against gay people. My partner and I pay our taxes; we deserve the same rights as others. And I hope you all realize that having a state legalize gay marriage is only the beginning - and we don’t even have that recognition yet.

I find that many straight Americans associate the word “marriage” with their personal (and often religious) beliefs (which can be threatening to them in the context of “same sex marriage”) whereas the term “civil union” is associated with laws and civil rights (which are not personally threatening). Perhaps “civil union” on a federal level is a better route for definite action for obtaining some meaningful, and much needed, federal civil rights.

I hope I haven’t taken too long to express myself. Thank you for this opportunity!

Posted by: Matt from New York | Oct 10, 2007 9:22:25 PM

I am gay, I live near San Francisco, and I am actively involved in promoting and volunteering for Ron Paul. I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2008 as a gay man, and I am proud of it. For the security of our lives, nation, and freedoms, please vote Ron Paul in 2008.

Posted by: Robert L. | Oct 16, 2007 2:51:20 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails