A: As a matter of fact, I spent a whole chapter in my new book on marriage. And I think it's very important seeing that I've been married for 54 years now. I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church as a private contract and we shouldn't have this argument of who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't impose my standards on others. Others have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. But if we want to have something to say about marriage, it should be at the state level and not at the federal level. Just get the government out of it. It's one area where it's totally unnecessary, and they've caused more trouble than necessary.
A: It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.
Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?
A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You're implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone's gonna use heroin.
How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! "Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws!"
A: I never thought heroin would get applause!
A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don't have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. You can't hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you'll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?
Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.
JOHNSON: I would not.
PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.
SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.
PAUL: Not true.
SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.
CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
The above quotations are from South Carolina "first GOP debate" at Peace Concert Hall SC, May 5th, 2011, sponsored by Fox News; moderator: Chris Wallace & Juan Williams; participants: Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson..
Click here for main summary page.
Click here for a profile of Ron Paul.
Click here for Ron Paul on all issues.
Ron Paul on other issues:
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
(We rely on your support!)