Congressman Paul, to you, on the subject of
one 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 gay marriage. Many of your rivals on that stage disagree.
Why are they wrong? I’m afraid I haven’t been able to get most
of your question. I know you brought up the subject of gay marriage, but I didn’t get
the point of what you’re saying. I can’t hear it that well. Why are on those stage who support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage wrong? OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it’s
better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is 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
mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All
voluntary associations, whether they’re 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 about. We don’t
need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution.
To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It’s very simply that the states should
be out of that business, and the states — 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 15 years.
The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress. (APPLAUSE)