AB: With regard to Ross Perot, and also Ralph Nader, the Libertarian Party of this year is looking to be the great spoiler of the election. I’m sure you’ve read the multiple articles on how you and Bob Barr will be taking votes away from Republican John McCain. Now, I understand you used to be a registered Republican, you donated to Republicans – you did donate to some Democrats, but you qualified yourself as a Republican. How do you feel about going up against the party that you once supported whole-heartedly?
WR: Well, I love it. First of all, let me correct you on something – you said that we want to be the big spoilers – no, we don’t.
AB: You are being referred to as spoilers.
WR: Yes, the media’s saying that, but I have no interest in being a spoiler. I have an interest in building a foundation. First of all, I have an interest in winning and if we’re not going to win the election, I have an interest in building a foundation so that four years from now, eight years from now or twelve years from now we can win the White House, whether it’s Bob Barr and Wayne Root or just Wayne Root. I’m a very young guy: 46-years old, like my classmate Barack Obama and I expect to be in this for many years to come. I have no interest in being a spoiler. That’s not my intention, but, having said that, if I can knock some sense into either of the two parties, I’m thrilled to do it.
AB: Switching gears here, getting a little more gay, what’s your stance on DOMA?
WR: Well, my stance is pretty simple. First of all, I believe it’s none of the government’s business to decide marriage at all. It’s a private ceremony or a religious ceremony. A church has a right to define it privately and if a church wants to ban – if the Catholic church or the Protestant church wants to say that two people of the same sex can’t get married, they can do that. It’s a free world and it’s a private enterprise. But, then, you have a right as a gay man or a lesbian woman to go and get married in a private ceremony by somebody who will marry you. It’s not a government’s job to license marriage. The government is a busy body. They try to get involved in people’s live and control us. The real answer is that religion shouldn’t in any way be involved in government and the government shouldn’t in any way license or get involved in religion and therefore I would fight to the death for anyone who is religious to practice their religion and I’d fight to the death for anyone who is not religious to not practice their religion. I’m not coming down on anyone’s side. I’m just saying the government should stay out of the process.
AB: Right, but part of DOMA is that the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriages, even if a state like Massachusetts or California does recognize them. What is your stance on that specific part of DOMA?
WR: Well, as much as I’d like government to be out of it completely, I’ve always been a states’ rights person. If you can’t progress on a federal level, at least you can get it inch-by-inch on a state-by-state level. I think it’s basically good for the people, if they have to be decided at all, first of all – like I said, I keep coming down on the side of fewer laws in general and the less government, the better, state or federal – but if it has to be decided, at least let’s get progress on the state level. That’s what I say about gay marriage or medical marijuana or online gambling. If Massachusetts or California and other progressive states legalize gay marriage, I say “great” and you as a gay person may want to go live there and feel more free, that’s great. If someone’s very deeply religious and they don’t want gay marriage and they therefore want therefore to choose to live in Alabama, Georgia or states with a more religious bent who don’t want to legalize it, then I say more power to those people who want to live in Georgia or Alabama.