Sexual orientation legislation
Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[185] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[186][187][188][189]
Same-sex unions
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[190] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[190][191]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[192] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[193] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[144] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.
Don't ask, don't tell
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:
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 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.[196]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[195]
Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," on May 27, 2010.[197] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he described his opposition to "ridiculous" sodomy laws, but his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the constitution, and setting a dangerous precedent of legislating from the bench, by declaring "sodomy" a constitutional right.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[198]
American Community Survey
He views the new American Community Survey questions as “both ludicrous and insulting”, believing that the information is simply none of the government's business.[199]
Ron paul believes in limited powers of government, as such he believes in only voting yes for things that are within the power of the federal government to do, this means he has voted against the federal government funding things that the federal government has no right funding, does this make him racist no, nor does it make him a bigot, the federal government has no right defining marriage, therefore the feds should have no say in gay marriage gay adoption etc etc etc.
