Yesterday, I wrote a post about Congressman Ron Paul’s speech & press availability for The FAMiLY Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series. In it I commented about Congressman Paul’s answer to a question related to the Iowa Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling back in 2009:
During the press conference he was asked if he supported the Iowa Supreme Court’s ability to legalize gay marriage. He appeared confused by the question. He said he supported it constitutionally, “every state has that right.” One of his aides tried to provide him some guidance and Paul then said, “he was asking about the ruling, not the justices.” He then went on to say, “I support the state of Iowa voting to get rid of the justices and write laws dealing with marriage, not the federal government.” He said that marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter and individuals should make that determination.”
Except that unfortunately for him, government is involved and we have a crisis on our hands, and while he defends Iowans right to oust the justices he also just defended the very reason the justices were ousted in the first place. I’m shocked that a constitutionalist like Congressman Paul would be fine with judicial review by the Iowa Supreme Court being viewed as equal with codified law. Our legislature didn’t codify gay marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court decreed it.
Congressman Paul’s political director, Jesse Benton, responded via email this morning to clarify Congressman Paul’s position:
The set-up for the press questions was not ideal, and was difficult for Ron to hear clearly while standing on the elevated stage. Also, the way the question you reference in your article was asked in a bit of a confusing way. Ron is human, and did get momentarily confused. But, one thing that should not be confused is Ron’s long held, principled positions.
Ron does not support activist Judges overturning the will of the legislature, and he NEVER supports legislating from the Bench. He strongly supported the removal of the three Iowa judges this past fall and is a strong defender of Iowa’s right to protect traditional marriage.
Glad to hear that!
