Rand Paul suggests government should stop recognising marriage altogether

Illustrated rainbow pride flag on a pink background.

Presidential candidate Rand Paul has questioned whether the government should be involved in marriage at all.

Writing for Time magazine in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, the junior US Senator for Kentucky said: “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.”

He went on: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.”

He has previously said: “Ultimately, we could have fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people,” when he called same-sex marriage a “moral crisis“.


Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul who unsuccessfully ran for President on three occasions.