Morally, Congressman Paul believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has noted on numerous times that to have a discussion concerning the definition of something already defined is not a proper function of any government. He has noted that states did not create the idea of marriage, but rather recently began to issue licenses for health reasons. He notes that most people view their marriage day as being joined in the eyes of their creator and not in the eyes of the state.
Legally, Congressman Paul has noted that marriage is not an issue for the federal government. While not in office at the time of the vote, Congressman Paul has stated that he would not support an amendment to define marriage as that is not a function of the federal government.
In keeping with his views on federalism, Congressman Paul supports the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
In October of 2003, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor noting his views in the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea by Rep. Ron Paul, MD Oct 1, 2004
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
In July of 2004, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the Marriage Protection Act and gay marriage in general.
Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states' same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president's signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church — not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act. Americans don't need new federal programs, and they certainly don't need more federal control over their schools. They don't need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won't hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.
New Hampshire Meet and Greet
In July of 2007, Congressman Paul spoke at a New Hampshire meet and greet during the Presidential race. He was asked about gay marriage and spoke about marriage licenses from the state and his belief that the federal government has no role. (comments start at 6:10)
Presidential Debate
During a 2008 Presidential Debate, Congressman Paul was asked about gay marriage. He is asked about gay marriage and discusses his view that government should be out of marriage. He is also asked about his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and notes that it defends the states's abilitites to determine marriage.
South Carolina Debate
In May of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate in South Carolina. He spoke about his desire to end the war inAfghanistan.
New Hampshire Debate
In June of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. He was asked about gay marriage, a constitutional amendment, and don't ask, don't tell.
KING: On that point -- on that point, to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's try to quickly go through it. Let me start at this end, we'll just go right through. I'll describe it this way. Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made -- this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state's decision?
...
PAUL: The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.
But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.
...
KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process -- and Leon Panetta, who's the new defense secretary, will implement -- essentially, the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you -- and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question -- if you were president -- if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to "don't ask/don't tell," or something else?
...
PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
Iowa Debate
In August of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. He was asked about gay marriage and stated that the government should not be involved in marriage, and that no one should be allowed to force their view on marriage onto anyone else.
YORK: All right. Thank you. Governor.
Next question is for Representative Paul. You've often said you believe defining marriage is a job that should be left to the states. Recently Senator Santorum asked if a state wanted to allow polygamy, would that be okay too? What is your answer to that?
PAUL: That is sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that. That so past reality that no state is going to do that.
But on the issue of marriage, I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. And the federal government shouldn't be involved.
I want less government involvement. I don't want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it if they need to, if they need to.
But if you didn't need the states -- really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don't we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can't we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine. Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent.
So I would say less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it. (APPLAUSE)
Voting Record
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
In 2010, the House voted to overturn the policy of don't ask, don't tell. Ron Paul voted in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Ron Paul voted in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Constitutional Amendment
In 2006 and 2004, the House voted on adding a constitutional amendment to establish that marriage shall consist of one man and one woman. It sought to ensure that no measure enacted in one state could be enforced in another state. The measures failed in both 2006 and 2004 with the support of most Republicans and the opposition of most Democrats. Ron Paul voted against the 2006 constitutional amendment attempt.
Ron Paul voted against the 2006 constitutional amendment attempt.
Constitutional Amendment
In 2006 and 2004, the House voted on adding a constitutional amendment to establish that marriage shall consist of one man and one woman. It sought to ensure that no measure enacted in one state could be enforced in another state. The measures failed in both 2006 and 2004 with the support of most Republicans and the opposition of most Democrats. Ron Paul voted against the 2004 constitutional amendment attempt.
Ron Paul voted against the 2004 constitutional amendment attempt.
Marriage Protection Act of 2004
The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 sought to ensure that no State shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other State. Although the bill passed the house in roll call 410, it was not voted on in the US Senate. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"
Amends the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution, of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other state.
