1. Ron Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman," and he also opposes the idea to create a constitutional amendment to define and defend traditional marriage:
"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."
2. Ron Paul supports 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." Ron Paul also was one of the co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction."
3. Ron Paul sees marriage as an institution that predates government and that is rooted in the religious freedom of the individual. His position is that the federal government does not have the authority to interfere with this level of personal association.
4. On the definition of marriage: "The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments."
In essence, Ron Paul is against the efforts to use the courts to impose the redefinition of marriage onto the American people. To him this is an issue of Constitutionalism and Federalism and basic freedoms such as the freedom to contract and the freedom of association.
What he is saying is that the Federal Government (be it the Congress or Courts) do not have authority to govern the marriage between two people, just like it generally doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on the terms of a contract between two people.
Of course, as Catholics we believe that marriage is an institution rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition and is no mere contract, but an unbreakable covenant. But this is far from the law's view of marriage today.
The real question is:
Can Catholics vote for Ron Paul in good conscience given his policy position on "civil unions" and "gay marriage?"
Ron Paul is not an advocate of civil unions or gay marriage, he is an advocate of Federalism, the Constitution, and the rights of free association. He is saying that it is the job of you and me, and not the Federal Government, to defend and restore a Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage in culture and law at the State level. He understands the abuses of judicial tyranny and opposes it. He would veto a Congressional law that would seek to legalize gay marriage. And he would veto any hate speech legislation seeking to censor speech about the pathological nature of homosexual behavior.
Before Kinsey and his backers launched a war on Christian America, we had common law protections of Judeo-Christian marriage on the books that promoted the common good and helped hold marriages and therefore society together. But that is no longer the case.
Our marriage laws are in shambles - they reflect a post-Christian pagan worldview that isn't going to be changed over night by banning gay marriage at the Federal level (in fact such an action would imprudently add fuel to the homosexual cause).
Voting for Ron Paul would ensure that a veto would stop legislation that seeks to push gay marriage or civil unions onto America. Voting for Ron Paul would ensure a veto of any hate speech legislation that comes out of Congress that tries to make it a crime to say, "homosexual behavior causes disease and hurts those who engage in it (oh, and it will sink the unrepentant soul into eternal hell)." That the question of marriage would be left to the states where you and I can exercise our freedoms to defend traditional marriage and present the ample evidence for its objective good for society.
Is Ron Paul a gay agenda advocate?
No. Quite the opposite.
He is fundamentally opposed to the idea that we derive special rights by being a member of a particular group (racial, sexual or otherwise).
Does he support homosexuals in their desire to have gay marriage?
He supports the individual's right to freely associate and contract and to call their association whatever they want. But he is opposed to gay pressure groups seeking to socially engineer through he federal courts and he is opposed to one State forcing it policy on another state.
If Massachusetts wants to have gay marriage, let them have have it through the legislative process, but don't push it onto Kansas, and don't force it on the whole United States through judical tyranny.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Ron Paul's position is rooted in the Constitution and basically protects the religious freedom of Catholics and political freedoms of homosexuals to battle it out on the State level. This is not only a prudential path and one that is well within the conscience of Catholic voters, but this path is one that homosexuals should support and vote for as well.
If they gay agenda has the merit they claim then they should be able to sway the electorate rather than force their positions on the American people, and they should have the freedom to make that case.
The Catholic position is the winning side, so we should welcome Ron Paul's position as a means to ensure our liberties in a time when our religious freedoms are being attacked, not the least by homosexual activists.