Paul believes that voluntary association between individuals is a given in a free society, and feels that no one should impose their values on one another. He is opposed to any Constitutional amendment to either deny or enhance the rights of the LGBT community.
Paul On LGBT
“All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities - it leads us astray. So it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life, if they do no harm you don't try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values. But you can't do it through legislation because force doesn't work... A group can't force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group, so if a homosexual group wanted to enforce their way on us, there's no right to do that either.”
Sep 17, 2007: Values Voter Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Paul on Marriage and Civil Unions
Paul has indicated before that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but stressed that the matter should be left to the states.
Question: How would your faith shape the way you approach social issues, such as same-sex marriage? Paul: Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament. I think it should be biblical, and politically I don't like to fight with people who disagree with me, as long as they don't force their views on me. So for that reason, I think the real solution to some of this argument is to have less government, rather than government dictating and forcing understanding on different people. I don't think much can be achieved. As I mentioned in my talk, Christ doesn't come and beg and plead for more laws. He pleads for more morality, and I think that's very important.
October 10, 2011: Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Christianity Today, Washington, D.C.
Carl Cameron: Congressman Paul to you, on the subject of the core debates in the party over social issues, gay marriage. You've been quoted as saying any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society and you've expressed your opposition to a Constitutional ban on the gay marriage. Many of your rivals on stage disagree. Why are they wrong? Paul: I'm afraid I haven't been able to get most of your question. I know you brought the subject of gay marriage, but I didn't get the point of what you're saying. I can't hear it that well. Carl Cameron: Why are those on the stage who support a constitutional amendment (muffled) gay marriage wrong? Paul: Oh okay. Well, if you believe in Federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left in the state. My personal belief is that, that marriage is a religious ceremony and it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state wise, got involved (illegible) for health reasons a hundred years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations whether economic or social should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary. To define something that's already in the dictionary, we do know what marriage is all about. We don't need a new definition or argue over definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me it seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business and the state, I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it. There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five, or ten, or fifteen years, you can, go, the authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.
October 21, 2007: Fox News Republican Presidential Debate in Orlando, Florida
Paul on DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell)
Scott Spradling: Congressman Paul, a question for you. Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end don't ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?
Paul: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.
So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
June 5, 2007: CNN Republican presidential debate
Note: On December 18, 2010, Paul voted in favor of repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
Paul on ‘Defense of Marriage Act’
Paul issued a statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Obama Administration will stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal actions.
“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.
I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what 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. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
Paul Makes A Hollywood Cameo
Completely irrelevant to the issue, but we just had to put it somewhere on the site, and this seems to be as good a place as any.
In 2009, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen somehow managed to secure an interview with Congressman Paul while playing the part of Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion designer/reporter. A visibly upset Paul, clearly unaware that the ‘interview’ was a hoax, stormed out of the hotel room after ‘Bruno’ attempted to seduce him.
Bruno : I'm here with Congressman Ron Paul, who was the 2008 presidential candidate. So tell me, who are you wearing? Paul: Well, I don't even know because it's pretty conventional. And I'm pretty, in that sense, pretty ordinary. But the message is not ordinary.
(Sorry, Herr Bruno. We lost a light. Do you want to go relax in the other room while we fix it?)
Bruno : Sure. Bruno : Do you want some champagne? Paul: I don't care for any. No. Bruno : There's no ice bucket, but I know a good place to put it.< Bruno : Yeah, you were great in there. Have you done a lot of television before? Paul: Well, off and on throughout the years. This last year, a tremendous amount. Bruno : Sure. Paul: I do a lot of them. Bruno : Do you want some strawberries or maybe some oysters? Paul: No, I'm okay. Bruno : I'm gonna light some candles if it's okay. Really loosens you up.
Has anyone ever told you you look like Enrique Iglesias?
Of course not. You're much cuter.
I love music. And dancing. I used to be a dancer. Paul: All right! Get out of here! Bruno : What? Paul: All right, this has ended. Unidentified voice: What's going on? Paul: That guy is queerer than the blazes. He took his clothes off. Let's get going. Unidentified voice: What happened? Paul: He's queer. He's crazy. He put a hit on me. He took his clothes off. Bruno : I couldn't even schtupp RuPaul. How would I become weltfamous?