Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“Do not be involved with the state in executing criminals or in any way approve the carrying out of the death penalty....

... Believers in the omnipotence of state military power are enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty. It’s strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war. Ironically, those who find the death penalty an affront to life are usually the strongest supporters of abortion. I grant that there certainly is a difference in the life being protected; one is totally innocent—the unborn—and the other usually a person convicted of a horrible crime, like murder or rape. The difference of opinion is usually along the lines of conservative versus liberal.

This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it.

After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government’s ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence.

Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off. For me it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades.”

“You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you’re poor and you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there’s been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.”

Rick Klein: Do you think our relationship with China over the last few years—did it get stronger? Weaker? Are we in a better position, worse position than we were when Obama took office?

Ron Paul: I would defer to saying it’s probably been pretty neutral. I don’t think it’s deteriorated, because things are so much better than what I remember in high school. We were fighting the Chinese and the Koreans. One of my teachers was sent to Korea and never came back. So that had an impact on me. So it’s so much better. I think Nixon did a lot of terrible things; I always criticize him about closing the gold bin and all these things. But he opened up the door to China. I think we’re much better off talking to the Chinese and trading with the Chinese, and they have an interest in staying peaceful with us, as we have an interest on them, even though we have our differences on some of the trade and “Why do our companies go to China?” And in some ways, they embarrass us, because they’re more Capitalistic than we are. It’s easier for our businesses to go to China than it is to stay here. That aggravates me. But I blame ourselves for that.

Kiran Chetry: … so turning to China, you have advocated a hands-off approach. You say we shouldn't be in the business of meddling with other countries, domestic politics. But as we look to China right now, China owning nearly $1 trillion in our debt, major trade imbalances, what message do you think the president needs to send today in his meeting with President Hu?

Ron Paul: Well, I would like the message to come out and say that we've learned the lesson. We should look to ourselves. Our policies have made it difficult for us to compete. And we can't go looking for scapegoats. We can't blame China for us spending too much money and printing too much money and buying cheap goods and doing so much to undermine our corporations here and our industries. So it's easier to start a business in China. They're more capitalistic in many ways than we are, so we should recognize our mistakes.

But to fight with China now, I mean, they are our third best partners. We sell as much goods there as -- more than anybody else. They're third in line. So I would say they're great customers and to argue that they're the problem, then we say, well, they're messing around with their currency.

What have we done for the last three years? First, we doubled, you know, the monetary base. Now we have QE-2. That's currency manipulation. Shouldn't we look to ourselves and say that we should have a sound economy? We should do everything we can to promote productivity here. But because China is flawed which they are, we shouldn't blame them. Besides, one thing that we do that they don't do is they're becoming a world power.

Chetry: Right.

Paul: And they're increasing their military power but they are increasing their influence by investments. We waste all this money and energy with our military empire and all the occupation, and they are buying up rights to oil and other minerals at the same time. We're just consuming our wealth by saying we're going to secure our oil in the Middle East. Just think of the horrible cost we're now in, only in lives, but in dollars, which compounds our problems, because that's inflationary. That causes the pressure on the Feds to even buy more debt. So I say look to ourselves. When we have a clean house and we have a perfect protection of civil liberties here in this country, then maybe we can preach to others.

“… Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of many billions of dollars through the Export/Import Bank- the most of any country in the world…

… We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It's a risky, inconsistent policy…

…The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air space of the Gulf of Mexico?? We must realize that China is a long way from the US and is not capable, nor is she showing any signs, of launching an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States…

… Throughout all of China's history she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yaloo River…

… The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution…

… We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists and should be encouraged. It's a fact that trade did help to resolve this current crisis without a military confrontation. Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods, as some would like, but they do come back and they serve to finance our current account deficit.

Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export/Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military technology to such a nation, or to any nation for that matter.

… We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their problems. Needless to say we don't have the legal authority to do so either…

… A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully.”

The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.

The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees.

Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Well, I think free trade is the answer. Free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world, so I'm always promoting free trade. And you might add Cuba, too. I think we would be a lot better off with Cuba, trading with Cuba. So, I think the more you can do to promote this free trade, the better off we'll be. But as far as us having an obligation, a military or a financial obligation to go down and dictate to them what government they should have, I don't like that idea.

I would work with the people and encourage free trade, and try to set a standard here where countries in Central America or South America or any place in the world would want to emulate us and set the standards that we have. Unfortunately, sometimes we slip up on our standards and we go around the world and we try to force ourselves on others.

I don't think the nations in South America and Central America necessarily want us to come down there and dictate which government they should have. And yet, I believe with friendship and trade, you can have a lot of influence, and I strongly believe that it's time we have friendship and trade with Cuba."

Wolf Blitzer: Imagine you're in the Oval Office, you speak to Raul Castro. What would you say to him?

Paul: Well, I'd ask him what he called about, you know?

… What was the purpose of his call? No, I would ask him what can -- what can we do to improve relations? Because I wouldn't see them as likely to attack us. When I was drafted in October of '62, that was a different world. I mean there were nuclear weapons in Cuba. That was a different story. But -- but today to -- not to talk to them and take the call and see what you can work out, helps -- helps Castro. It hurts the people, the dissidents, the people who want to overthrow him have always had to be, you know, nationalistic and unified behind the leader.

So as well intended as these sanctions are, they almost inevitably backfire and they help the dictators and hurt the people…

… So it's time to change. The Cold, the Cold War, the Cold War is over. They're not going to invade us and I just think that a better relationship and trade relationship, so many people -- I think -- I've noticed already since I've been talking about this issue the last four of five years, I think the people have changed their mind. It's very -- the American people are getting much more open. Not nearly as frightened. And people -- I don't think they see a Jihadist under the bed every night...

“You have a right to your life and you have a right to your property, but you don’t have, education isn’t a right, healthcare isn’t, education…these are things you have to earn.”

The Constitution is very, very clear. There is no authority for the federal government to be involved in education… There's no, no prohibition in the Constitution for the states to be involved in education. That's not a bad position and we can sort things out. But once, once again the Senators for, was for No Child Left Behind, but now he's running for president, now he's running to repeal No Child Left Behind once again. But, and he calls it a team sport. He has to go along to get along and that's the way the team plays. But that's what the problem is with Washington. That's what's been going on for so long…

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

“In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.”

“We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

Specifically, should we subsidize, enforce mandates, or give tax credits and deductions to industries like ethanol and natural gas? Having a thriving energy market domestically is a good thing and something the government should not hinder. Not only would decreasing our dependence on foreign oil simplify our foreign policy, but it would greatly enhance our anemic economy at home. Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy.

General Policy On Guantanamo

“Question: Where do you stand on Guantanamo?

Congressman Ron Paul: Shut it down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility.”

“It should be closed because we don't need it. It was unnecessary, the way these prisoners were captured was very questionable. They haven't had really due process. So, the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried.

They (The Democrats) have deleted the funding mainly because the Republicans have really won the argument… If you don't support the continuation of these military tribunals and you don't support Guantanamo, maybe you support sending these people into your district and they'll be your neighbors… The Democrats were convinced that [the Republicans] won the PR fight, and so therefore, [the Democrats] all became squeamish. And even the president (Obama) backed down. That's why there's no funding for closing Guantanamo, and I guess it will be open for an indefinite future.”

On Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

“Torture is illegal, by our laws and it’s illegal by international laws… Well, waterboarding is torture, and many other (illegible). It’s illegal under international law and under our law. It’s also immoral. It’s also very impractical. There’s no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing a hundred people because you know one person might have information? And that’s what you do when you accept the principle of torture. I think it’s uncivilized, it has no practical advantages and it’s really un-American to accept on principle that we will torture people that we capture.”

“While Congress is sidetracked by who said what to whom and when, our nation finds itself at a crossroads on the issue of torture. We are at a point where we must decide if torture is something that is now going to be considered justifiable and reasonable under certain circumstances, or is America better than that?

‘Enhanced interrogation’ as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.

In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.

For these reasons, it is illegal in the United States and illegal under Geneva Conventions. Simulated drowning, or water boarding, was not considered an exception to these laws when it was used by the Japanese against US soldiers in World War II. In fact, we hanged Japanese officers for war crimes in 1945 for water boarding. Its status as torture has already been decided by our own courts under this precedent. To look the other way now, when Americans do it, is the very definition of hypocrisy.
…

The government’s own actions and operations in torturing people, and in acting on illegally obtained and unreliable information to kill and capture, are the most radicalizing forces at work today, not any religion, nor the fact that we are rich and free. The fact that our government engages in evil behavior under the auspices of the American people is what poses the greatest threat to the American people, and it must not be allowed to stand.”

“My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous."

“There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well.

"One side says use the US Army, round them up ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty... The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen… if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights."

"...birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation… No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship…
     I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined…
     Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."

“There was an immigration bill that had a fence in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don’t like amnesty. So I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve our problem. I find it rather offensive.”

Scott Pelley: Congressman Paul, let me follow up with you for just 30 seconds. Is it worth going to war to prevent a nuclear weapon in Iran?

Ron Paul: No, it isn’t worthwhile. The only way you would do that is you’d have to go the Congress. We — we as commander in chief aren’t — to make a decision to go to war. You know, the old-fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened. And I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq. And you know they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and it was orchestrated and it was, to me, a tragedy of what’s happened these past — last 10 years, the death and destruction, $4 billion — $4 trillion in debt. So no, it’s not worthwhile going to war. If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it and get it over with.

“John Harris: Another question from a Politico reader. Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage, would that create more jobs?

Ron Paul: Absolutely. It would help the poor people who need jobs. Minimum wage is a mandate. We’re against mandates so why should we have it? It would be very beneficial…

… Mandates, that what the whole society is about, that’s what we do all the time. That’s what government is - mandate, mandate, mandate. We talk so much about the Obama mandate which is very important, but what about Medicare? Isn’t that a mandate? Everything we do is mandate. So, this is why you have to look at this, the cause of liberty. We don’t need the government running our lives.”

"Well, obviously, it should be a state issue. It shouldn't be a federal issue. You even admitted it doesn't work very well. Then no, it should be a state issue.

But it has a responsibility, if you understand the economic environment that's necessary that the federal government can create -- sound money, don't overregulate, don't overtax, don't run up deficits. That's the environment that the federal government creates, destroys the job. The whole system of taxation and monetary policy sends our jobs overseas.

So, yes, they have a responsibility. But to say yes, there's only a few people who need our help, so we're going to give food stamps for the very needy. Well, what happens is you give food stamps for the very wealthy and endorse that principle 100 percent."

"Well, I imagine that applies to a few people in the country, but, no, I don't quite come at it that way because the system has been biased against the middle class and the poor. When you destroy a currency, you transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy because they have access to the capital and they have a lot of benefits and they get the bailouts. So the poor and the people losing their jobs, wasn't their fault that we followed a very deeply flawed economic system, so I am not so anxious to say, "Yes, it is all your fault, if you want to be rich, you can be rich."

People are begging and pleading for jobs, but there are no jobs as a consequence of bad economic policy. It is the fact that we still accepted the notion that central economic planning and central banking under the Keynesian model can provide prosperity. That's where the flaw is. To blame that on the average person who wants a job, I don't agree with that."

"The misguided federal 'War on Poverty' has proven disastrous to our nation. Federal intervention only resulted in more poverty, as the welfare rolls grew while employment shrank and mothers were encouraged to have children out-of-wedlock because the more children they had, the bigger the check they got from the federal government. I propose getting the federal government out of the way of private charities and institutions that wish to deal with the impoverished, and I want to end federal regulations and subsidies that restrict businesses, discourage renovation and expansion, and further the plight of the poor. Eliminating many taxes and regulations will allow businesses to hire more workers, and make it easier for impoverished areas to be renovated with private and corporate money. True compassionate conservatism means letting individuals, churches, and other groups, not indifferent federal bureaucracies, provide help."

Prescription drugs are tremendously expensive, but the solution is not a wasteful new one-size-fits-all government drug entitlement. To lower drug prices, we must eliminate government interference that prevents healthy free-market price competition.

First and foremost, we must eliminate the middleman in health care. The HMO Act of 1973, coupled with tax rules that do not allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for health care, combine to force millions of Americans to deal with HMO and Medicare bureaucrats…

… The Food and Drug Administration is also directly responsible for high drug costs. Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a single drug to market because of FDA rules. Often FDA approval is never obtained, no matter how much a company spends developing a drug. So pharmaceutical makers naturally try to recoup their huge investments by charging high prices and lobbying to keep exclusive drug patent periods as lengthy as possible. We need to understand that the FDA does far more harm than good, both in terms of drug prices and the incalculable chilling effect it has on needed drug research. With less FDA interference, patents could be shortened and drug development costs reduced. This would allow greater price competition between drug companies.

It does not matter if the Canadians or Germans employ price controls. Their drug prices may be artificially low, while ours may be artificially high. This simply shows that both the U.S. and other countries interfere in the market. It is not a justification for further intervention in the market by prohibiting reimportation. American consumers should not be punished simply because other governments have foolish economic policies.

Pharmaceutical companies certainly own the drugs they produce, and they have every right to sell them at any price they choose. They also have the right not to sell their products to foreign pharmacies, or to condition sales on an agreement that such pharmacies will not reimport into the U.S. They do not have a right, however, to use government to prevent Americans from buying drugs from any willing seller they choose, regardless of where that seller may be located.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

“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.”