Speaking yesterday at the Presidential Lecture Series as the guest of Bob Vander Plaats’ group Family Leader, which is intent on ousting every reasonable Iowa Supreme Court justice, Texas Rep. Ron Paul had trouble figuring out if he supported the way Iowa got legal same-sex marriage. See, Paul believes marriage is a state’s rights issue, and if lawmakers want to pass gay marriage then fine. But what if the courts do it, bub?
He said he supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which specifies that states do not have to accept out-of-state marriages that don’t conform with their laws. “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize it and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” he said. He said he also strongly supported Iowa voters’ right to oust Supreme Court justices.
However, he seemed confused when asked whether he supported the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. He said at first that he didn’t read “that report” but agreed with every state’s right to legislate on marriage. Asked more specifically if he agreed with the ruling that legalized gay marriage, he started to repeat that it was the state’s right to legislate on the issue. An aide intervened to try to clarify the question. Paul said the bottom line is that government shouldn’t get involved and that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. “My position is it’s a personal, spiritual matter.” He said it becomes the state’s concern when one government, such as another state, tries to impose its views on another.
LOL @ “that report,” because you think when you show up to an event hosted by Vander Plaats, you at least get briefed on the very reason this man exists: to kill the state’s gay marriage law. Which is tantamount to the government infringing on a personal, spiritual matter, no?
Ron Paul is doing an awkward tap dance on this issue. He is for DOMA but believes the government should stay out of the marriage business…right. Ron Paul like all the other GOP misfits are against big government except for when it suits them.
A lot of gay conservatives/libertarians swoon over this old fart as if he is some pro-gay savior. Unfortunately for them he’ll never become president, thank goodness for the rest of us!
I guess it’s too much to ask any politician to shut up when they have no clue what’s going on.
@GayGOP: Yep – I’d say that’s pretty much a bipartisan problem.
“He said it becomes the state’s concern when one government, such as another state, tries to impose its views on another.”
??????wHAT AN ASSWIPE!
Did he ever read the Constitution??
The United States Supreme Court has not ruled on how (if at all) these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, in August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples which were finalized in other states.
Oh, Ron…and his lovely wife Ru…
Comments are closed.