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!


  1. I’m sorry, but Ron Paul doesn’t get a “do-over” in this. IF he doesn’t recognize how important this subject is to Iowans, and be prepared for this question, he needn’t bother to enter the Iowa Caucus process!

    1. Just because he misunderstood a question doesn’t mean he misunderstands the issue.

    2. Just because he misunderstood a question doesn’t mean he misunderstands the issue.

    3. He does recognize how important it is, and that’s why he’s also questioning the no-fly zone, and other means of stepping over the law aggression by progressives. Ron Paul cares very much about the proper order of law in the United States of America, and he would tell you that very fervently if he were here to talk to you in person.

      If you’re from Iowa , then I’m sure he’ll make a great case about his legitimacy to become President in 2012.

  2. If YOU misunderstand a question, don’t you ask for a clarification BEFORE you answer? That’s a very lame excuse, in my estimation.

    1. Not necessarily. If you ask me a question, and I think I heard you correctly and think I know what you are asking and then answer the question in a way that reflects my misunderstanding of your question, then that makes sense. That seems to be the case here. If you ask a question and it sounds like gibberish, and I have no idea what you said, then I would ask for clarification. As the saying goes: Communication is not what I say, it is what you hear.

  3. If a question is misunderstood, it will likely result in an inappropriate reply. RP isn’t beyond an honest mistake (even if some of his critics pretend to be), but RP’s longstanding belief in the supremacy of the legislative body over either the judicial or the executive is well known. Proof of the supremacy of the legislative branch is manifest in the legislature’s power to impeach members of either of the other two branches; a power that ought to be regularly exercised!

  4. Thanks for this additional piece of news. Ron Paul is awesome and he should have been our president in 2008 if the media didn’t trash him so frequently. Thank-you for not leaving the issue with that last edition of your news.

    Ron Paul for President 2012. Also I would support Jesse Ventura.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

In 2020, Iowa Shatters Voter Turnout Record

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate announced more than 1,697,000 Iowans voted, easily surpassing the previous state record of 1,589,951 set in 2012.

Could Donald Trump Be Blocked at Convention?

With the continued string of unforced errors from Donald Trump is it possible that delegates at the Republican National Convention will mutiny?

Video: Paul Ryan Addresses Value Voters Summit

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan spoke at the Value Voters Summit in Washington, DC. Video & transcript of speech included.

Watch: Vice Presidential Debate Between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris

Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., participated in the vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah.