Ron Paul on a Federal Marriage Amendment

At yesterday's Republican debate Ron Paul was asked to clarify his position, his opposition, to a federal amendment to the constitution to "protect" marriage:

PAUL: 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.

PAUL: 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.

The state should be in the business of recognizing and protecting the legal rights of civil unions, straight and gay. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state has no business wading into the issue of marriage. It should be up to religious communities to decide if they want to bless civil unions with the religious rite of marriage. This is what we call the separation of church and state, and state-recognized marriage gets the state involved in the middle of religious issues where it has no business.