Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." - source
"The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea" by Ron Paul
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to make Ron Paul out to be a flaming supporter of perversion. I understand his position on this. He's trying to be prudent. Like many politicians in Washington DC, he doesn't want to use the Constitution as a tool for promoting social morality. I understand his perspective. I also disagree with it.
The Constitution has been used before to promote social morality and I would argue that this is completely acceptable when it comes to matters of civil rights. Case in point, the biggest social morality amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the 13th Amendment -- the one that banned slavery. Today we just take it for granted that slavery is immoral, unfair and counterproductive to society. But prior to the passage of this amendment, the issue was not so crystal clear.
The issue of gay marriage is a ticking time bomb. The problem comes from our constitution itself. It's called the "full faith and credit clause" (Article IV, Section 1), and it's a portion of our constitution that the courts will soon use to make gay-marriage legal in all 50 states. The section reads as follows...
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
What this means is that a public act, or record, (such as a marriage) must be given full legal faith and credit in all 50 states if it is given legal faith and credit in just one. That's why you don't have to get remarried every time you move from one state to another. This portion of the constitution guarantees that a marriage recognized in one state will be recognized in all states equally. So if one state (like Massachusetts for example) allows gay-marriage, than according to the US Constitution, all states must recognize the gay marriages performed in that state. Other states don't necessarily have to provide gay-marriages, but they do have to recognize one that already exists in another state.
This is the ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Sooner or later, some homosexual couple is going to sue a state for not recognizing their gay-marriage. The case will work its way through the courts, but after all is said and done, the Supreme Court will have to rule in favor of states recognizing gay-marriages. It has to, because the constitution is very specific and clear about these things.
The only solution to this problem is to amend the constitution so that it defines what it means by "marriage." Such an amendment, limiting civil marriage to one man and one woman, would spare all the other states from having to recognize gay-marriages from states like Massachusetts. It's the only guaranteed way of fixing the problem. But Ron Paul (like most Washington politicians) opposes that. So in my opinion, that's a real problem.