Marriage: As a candidate in 2010, Paul said he was committed to supporting a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. He later suggested that marriage should be left to the states to decide, so that opponents of marriage equality could keep fighting the issue for “decades,” even if that means “New York State may have gay marriage, but Alabama not.”

Discrimination: As a candidate, Paul completed a Christian Coalition voter guide saying he was committed to fighting against efforts to make sexual orientation a protected class. On the same day he claimed to have a “zero tolerance” policy against discrimination, he voted against ENDA, which would explicitly protect LGBTQ+ workers from workplace discrimination. Paul even skipped a committee hearing on his own amendment to ENDA.

Executive Orders: Committed to repealing all of President Obama’s executive orders, including one that explicitly protects LGBTQ+ workers from discrimination.

Conversion Therapy: Unclear

Harmful Rhetoric: Paul joked that President Obama’s views on marriage couldn’t “get any gayer” and then suggested that marriage equality would lead to people marrying non-human objects.

Adoption: Unclear

Anti-Bullying: Unclear

Paul’s Notable Quotes on LGBTQ+ Equality

Rand Paul Joked at Conservative Conference: “I Wasn’t Sure [President Obama’s] Views On Marriage Could Get Any Gayer.” At the Iowa Faith and Family Coalition, “U.S. Sen. Rand Paul remarked on President Obama's decision to publicly support same-sex marriage by saying, ‘Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer’… ‘It did kind of bother me though that he used the justification for it in a biblical reference,’ he continued to more laughter. ‘He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage. And I'm like what version of the Bible is he reading?...I don't know what version he's getting it from…Now that doesn't mean we need to be harsh and mean and hate people...But that doesn't mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We've got 6,000 years of tradition.’ He said it was time for traditionalists to stand together to ‘save the Republic’ and that the traditional family unit needed to be defended.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/12/12, VIDEO]

Rand Paul Suggested Marriage Equality Would Lead to Humans Marrying Non-Humans. Responding to a question on where same-sex marriage could lead from Glenn Beck, Rand responded, “I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening – whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?” [MSNBC.com, 10/7/13; AUDIO]

Paul on the Issues

• Marriage Equality: Opposed

• Protecting LGBTQ+ Americans from Discrimination: Opposed

• Protecting President Obama’s LGBTQ+ Executive Orders: Opposed

• Ban Harmful “Conversion Therapy:” TBD

• LGBTQ+ Adoption: TBD

• Anti-Bullying: TBD

On 2010 Christian Coalition Survey, Paul Supported A Federal Amendment To Prevent Same-Sex Marriage. In the Christian Coalition 2010 Voter Guide, during his race against Democrat Jack Conway, Paul indicated support for a “Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same-sex marriage.” [Christian Coalition Survey, 8/11/2010]

Rand Paul Said Marriage Should Be Decided State-by-State Rather Than Nationally so that ‘Urban Centers’ Couldn’t Dictate the Law. According to Raw Story: “I believe in traditional marriage,” he said during an interview with Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. “I really don’t understand any other kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman is what I believe in, and I just don’t think it is good for us to change the definition of that.’ Paul said marriage rights should be decided state-by-state rather than nationally so that ‘urban centers’ couldn’t dictate the law.” [Raw Story, 1/30/13, VIDEO]

Rand Paul Wanted to Take Marriage Out of Tax Code Rather Than Include Same-Sex Couples. In an interview with National Review, Paul said, “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage…That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.” [National Review, 3/12/13]

Paul Said, “I Don’t Think The Federal Government Should Tell Anybody Or Any State Government How They Should Decide This. Marriage Has Been A State Issue For Hundreds And Hundreds Of Years.” On Fox News Sunday, when asked if the Courts should strike DOMA, Paul said, “You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.” [Fox News Sunday, 3/24/2013, VIDEO]

Rand Paul Said, “I Don’t Mind If The Government Tries To Be Neutral [On Marriage]….I’m For A Flat Income Tax And We Wouldn’t Have Marriage As Part Of The Tax Code.” On Fox News Sunday, asked about the Supreme Court hearing DOMA, Paul said, “DOMA is complicated, though, because DOMA does provide protection for the states from the federal government. But, then, you're right, part of it federalizes the issue. I think there's a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. If they do, I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue, and, I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in. But I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. You know, the tax code, I'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. Health insurance, I think there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the whole idea of health insurance.” [Fox News Sunday, 3/24/2013, VIDEO]

Paul Said He Was “Not Willing to Give Up” on “Traditional Family Unit” In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, Paul said, "I think that we've got a long history with marriage — I'm not willing to give up on it yet. The family unit, even above and beyond America and before America, the family unit has been something that's been [around] for thousands of years and I think it's an important structure…Not everyone is going to agree with me on that...young people seem to be changing their opinions. But I think we should still be in favor of what we're in favor of, and that's that there is a traditional family unit and that it's important.” [CBN, At Home with Rand Paul, 4/4/13, VIDEO]

Paul Said That Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Would “Lose That Battle” At Federal Level, But Could Keep Debate Going For Decades If Decision Left Up to States. According to CBN: “The law is going to be somewhat different in the sense that, where marriage is adjudicated, whether it’s at the federal level or the state level. We’ve always had marriage certificates, we’ve had them at the state level. If we keep it that way, maybe we can still have the discussion go on without making the decision go all the way one way or all the way the other way. Because I think right now if we say…we're only going to [have] one man, one woman marriage, we're going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can win back the hearts and minds of people." [CBN, At Home with Rand Paul, 4/4/13, VIDEO ]

Paul Said GOP Needs To “Agree To Disagree” On Marriage And Praised Kennedy Ruling Striking Parts Of DOMA As Avoiding A “Cultural War.” According to ABC: “Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding ‘a cultural war.’ ‘As a country we can agree to disagree,’ Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. ‘As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.’….Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called ‘someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion.’ He said Kennedy ‘tried to strike a balance.’” [ABC, The Note, 6/26/2013]

Paul Said He Was “Fine with Allowing the States to Determine” the Definition of Marriage, Even If That Meant “New York State May Well Have Gay Marriage and Alabama Not.” During an interview with NPR, Paul said, “If we do that, what it allows us to do is to be a country that has different viewpoints on some of these cultural issues. If you do that, then New York [S]tate may well have gay marriage and Alabama may not.” The interviewer asked if Paul was fine with that, and Paul responded, “Well, what I’m fine with is allowing the states determine. Marriage has always been a state and local issue. I have my own personal beliefs of what I think marriage is, but I think the position that is going to work for our country that doesn’t pull us apart, is allowing states to make the decisions on these issues.” [WBUR, 6/27/13, AUDIO]

When Asked Whether His Call For GOP to ‘Embrace Liberty In Both The Economic And Personal Spheres’ Includes Marriage Equality, Paul Said It Should Be Left to the States. During an interview on WBUR, Paul was asked, “You’ve said that the new GOP is going to need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal spheres so it seems to me that that would then include the freedom for people to marry the people that they want to marry.” Paul responded, “Well, I think that what happens is we do allow people and we do agree to disagree on this basically. So there’s going to be parts of this country who do embrace it and parts of the country who don’t, and I think that’s one of the beauties of federalism, and most people who are from my persuasion — they believe in limited government — do believe that most of these powers should devolve to state governments and to localities. [WBUR, 6/27/13, AUDIO]

Rand Paul: “We Should Not Say We’re Punting On It, Marriage Can Be Anything.” When discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down portions of DOMA, Paul said, “I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.” [MSNBC.com, 10/7/13, AUDIO]

Paul Stated It Was “Illegitimate” For Federal Court To Order Kentucky To Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriage, Believes In “Historic and Religious” Definition of Marriage. According to Reason magazine, after a federal judge issued an order for the state of Kentucky to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states, Rand Paul responded by saying, “I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government. It is illegitimate for the federal courts to intrude here.” [Reason, Hit and Run Blog, 3/4/14]

Paul Said GOP “In Order To Get Bigger, Will Have To Agree To Disagree On Social Issues Like Marriage.” Rand Paul told Vocativ and GOPride: “I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.” [Vocativ, GoPride.com, 3/14/2014]

Paul Said On Marriage: “Allowing Different Parts Of The Country To Make Their Decision Based On The Local Mores And Culture Is A Good Idea” But That Federal Government Should Be Neutral. Asked by Vocativ and GOPride, “As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?” Paul responded, “On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.” [Voactiv, GoPride.com, 3/14/2014]

Rand Paul Said While He Was A ‘Social Conservative’ Who Opposed Same-Sex Marriage, “I Think There’s An Arrogance To Having Absolute Litmus Tests.” According to BuzzFeed, at the New Hampshire Freedom Summit: “Paul, who devoted a chunk of his speech to the need for softer criminal sentences for drug offenders, told reporters afterward that his light touch on traditional social issues is a function of his work to expand the Republican coalition. ‘I want a bigger party, not a smaller party. I want to win national elections, not lose them. I’m a social conservative,’ Paul went on. ‘I’m a believer in traditional marriage. I believe that, you know, there is something important to life, and it comes from God. But I’m also a believer that a lot of the way our country was founded was upon federalism.’ He argued states should be allowed to experiment with their own definitions of marriage, and declared, ‘I think there’s an arrogance to having absolute litmus tests.’” [BuzzFeed, 4/13/2014]

Paul Said For Republicans To Win They Need To Be “Live And Let Live” And “Agree To Disagree” On Social Issues Like Same-Sex Marriage. In an interview with Reason TV, Paul said, “I think Republicans can only win in general if they become more ‘live and let live.’ Grover Norquist will talk about this sometimes, this ‘leave me alone’ coalition. But in order [for the party to] work—and this is what a lot of people don’t realize this and they say “oh well we want the Republicans to be the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage party—it may not be that but it may be that there are people in the Republican party that have those positions and some who don’t, and that we all get along because we believe in limited government and we acknowledge that the federal government isn’t going to be involved in some of these issues anyways. And I think that ‘live and live, agree to disagree’ kind of amalgamation of people in the party will allow us to be big enough to win.” [Reason, 7/23/2014, VIDEO]

Rand Paul Said He Favored “Traditional Marriage” As “The Foundation Of Civilization For Thousands Of Years” And “The Loss Of The Idea Of Marriage Is Probably The Leading Cause Of Poverty In Our Country.” According to CNN, in Urbandale, Iowa: “Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday he supports the idea of traditional marriage but thinks Washington shouldn’t be involved in the issue. ‘I’m in favor of the concept,’ the Kentucky Republican told an audience in Iowa. ‘I am in favor of traditional marriage, and I think that’s been the foundation for civilization for thousands of years.’ ‘And the loss of the idea of marriage is probably the leading cause of poverty in our country, in the sense that if you kids before you’re married, your chance of being in poverty is three of four times that of anyone else,’ he continued.” [CNN, Political Ticker, 8/6/2014]

• AUGUST 2014: Paul Said He Was “In Favor Of The Concept” Of A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same Sex Marriage. Asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Rand Paul said “I’m in favor of the concept. I am in favor of traditional marriage, and I think that’s been the foundation for civilization for thousands of years. And the loss of the idea of marriage is probably the leading cause of poverty in our country, in the sense that if you kids before you’re married, your chance of being in poverty is three of four times that of anyone else.” [Rand Paul, West Side Conservative Club, Urbandale, IA 8/6/2014]

Paul Said The GOP Couldn’t “Completely Flip” On Issues Like Marriage, But Could Become “A Bigger Tent.” Paul told the New York Times Magazine: “‘The party can't become the opposite of what it is,’ [Paul] told me. ‘If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we've been wrong, and we're gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they're either gonna stay home or — I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues. So I don't think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent? I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions.’” [New York Times Magazine, 8/10/2014]

Paul Said, “I Don’t Want To Register My Guns In Washington Or My Marriage.” According to CNN: “In tune with his libertarian leanings, Paul reiterated that he supports the idea of removing the federal government from marriage. ‘I don’t want to register my guns in Washington or my marriage,’ he said. ‘That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn’t register their marriage in Washington. They registered it locally at the courthouse. I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue.’” [CNN, Political Ticker, 8/6/2014]

When Asked If Paul Could Re-Think His Marriage Position, Paul Shrugged In Response. According to Real Clear Politics, in an interview on CNN with Peter Hamby, Rand said, “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage, but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this and I think the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in an interview with CNN's Peter Hamby. ‘And you could rethink it at some point, too?’ Hamby asked. Paul shrugged in response. Paul was in Charleston, S.C. to speak to students at the College of Charleston. [Real Clear Politics, 10/6/2014; CNN, 10/2/2014> ; VIDEO]

Rand Paul Said Same-Sex Marriage “Offends Myself And A Lot Of People.” In an interview with Fox’s Bret Baier for Special Report’s Presidential Contender Series, Paul said, ““I’m for traditional marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. 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. But I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we’re still headed.” [Fox News, Special Report Presidential Contender Series, 3/6/2015; VIDEO]

Paul Said “There’s Also A Moral Crisis That Allows People To Think That There Would Be Some Sort Of Other Marriage.” Talking Points Memo reported that “Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday told a group of pastors and religious leaders that the debate over gay marriage was a symptom of a ‘moral crisis’ in America and said he hoped for ‘another Great Awakening.’[….] ‘In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country — there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage — there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage.’[….] ‘I've said this before, we need a revival in the country,’ Paul said on Thursday, as several in the room murmured in approval. ‘We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying, ‘reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform,’ he said.” [Talking Points Memo, 3/27/2015]

Rand Paul On 2010 Christian Coalition Survey Opposed “Making Sexual Preference A Protected Minority Status.” In the Christian Coalition 2010 Voter Guide, during his race against Democrat Jack Conway, Paul indicated opposition to “making sexual preference a protected minority status under existing civil rights laws.” [Christian Coalition Survey, 8/11/2010]

Paul Said He Stood With Catholic Bishops In Hobby Lobby Case “To Assert The Religious Liberty And Freedom Of Conscious That Our Forefathers Guaranteed Us.” In an Op-Ed in National Review, responding to the Hobby Lobby case, Paul said “I stand firmly with the Catholic bishops in their efforts to assert the religious liberty and freedom of conscience that our forefathers guaranteed us. To that end, I will co-sponsor legislation with my Senate colleagues to overturn the administration's edict. I do so to stand with all of my constituents, Catholic and otherwise, against the beliefs and actions of an administration unconcerned with our constitutional rights. I will also personally work toward crafting even broader legislative relief to ensure that religious liberty in this country is protected.” [National Review Online, 2/8/2012]

2013: Rand Paul Voted Against ENDA In Senate Health, Education, Labor, And Pensions Committee. According to ABC News: “The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today approved ENDA, a bill that would prohibit employers from firing, refusing to hire, and discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation and gender identity….The committee voted 15-7 to approve ENDA and report it to the full chamber. All Republicans on the committee voted against it except for Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Mark Kirk, R-Ill. Kirk spoke in favor of the bill at the hearing’s outset. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was among the senators who voted against sending ENDA to the full Senate.” [ABC News, 7/10/2013]

Paul Introduced Amendment To Broaden Religious Exemption In ENDA, Then Didn’t Show Up For Committee Hearing. According to MSNBC: “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, is now cleared to head to the full Senate, which has not taken up the measure since 1996. Every Democrat on the 22-member Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee voted for the bill, along with three Republicans–Sens. Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, and Orrin Hatch—who were all heavily lobbied in the lead-up to the vote…..But as with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which bans employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—ENDA contains an exemption for religious organizations. ‘We talked a lot about the religious exemption with Sen. Hatch,’ who ended up voting for the bill on Wednesday, said Almeida. ‘Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment to broaden the exemption, but then he didn’t show up for the committee hearing.’ Sen. Paul did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his absence.” [MSNBC, 7/10/2013]

On Same Day As Vote Against ENDA, Paul Claimed He Had A “Zero Tolerance Policy” For Discrimination, Including Sexual Orientation. According to Think Progress: “Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed Wednesday he had ‘zero tolerance for discrimination,’ but on the same day opposed a bill to ban workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans. As part of his defense of a staffer under fire for once making comments in support of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth, Paul told the Huffington Post: ‘PAUL: All I can say is, we have a zero tolerance policy for anybody who displays discriminatory behavior or belief in discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, anything like that. We won’t tolerate any of that, and I’ve seen no evidence of that.’ But Paul was recorded as a ‘no’ Wednesday morning when the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted 15 to 7 to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA would simply ban employment discrimination on the basis of a person’s real or perceived sexual orientation or gender.” [Think Progress, 7/11/2013]

Paul’s ENDA Amendment Would Exempt Any For-Profit Business That Says Hiring LGBT People Would “Burden The Employer’s Exercise Of Religion.” According to the Wall Street Journal: “Under the [ENDA] bill as passed out of committee, employers generally would be barred from discriminating in hiring and firing decisions because a worker was gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, meaning they are living life as the opposite gender from how they were born. There’s an exemption for churches and other house of worship as well as for religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and charities. Some are trying to broaden it even further. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) may offer an amendment to exempt any for-profit business that says hiring gay people would ‘burden the employer’s exercise of religion.’” [Wall Street Journal, 11/1/2013]

Paul Proposed An Amendment To ENDA That Would Have Created National Right-To-Work Law, Opposed By Democrats. According to the Huffington Post, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have proposed an amendment to a workplace discrimination bill in the hopes of creating a national right-to-work law. The measure -- which, as Roll Call reported Monday, would be tacked onto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- would forbid contracts between companies and labor unions that require workers to pay the union for bargaining on their behalf. Prized by Republicans and business groups and loathed by unions, such laws have made it onto the books in 24 states, most recently in Michigan…..The Senate cleared a major legislative hurdle Monday night by voting to move forward with debate on ENDA, which would bar discrimination in the workplace for large businesses on the basis of sexual orientation or identity. The measure introduced by McConnell and Paul will now become part of that discussion. It's highly unlikely, however, that the Democratic-controlled chamber would ever send right-to-work legislation to the president's desk.” [Huffington Post, 11/5/2013]

2013: Paul Voted Against Employment Non-Discrimination Act In Full Senate Vote. [Senate Vote 232, S. 815, 113^th Congress, 1^st Session, 11/7/2013]

Rand Paul Said Vote Against ENDA Was Due To “Potential Discrimination Against Religious Groups” And Had Nothing To Do With Supporting Employer Discrimination. In the Courier-Journal, Rand Paul wrote, “The Courier-Journal’s comparison of my vote and Sen. Mitch McConnell’s against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to Southern segregation of the 1960s is absolutely shameful. There were many problems with this legislation and those concerns are what led me to not support the bill, none of which has a thing to do with somehow supporting employer discrimination, as the Courier-Journal so ridiculously and cartoonishly implies. Part of that concern was potential discrimination against religious groups. With Sen. McConnell, I voted for Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) amendment that would exempt religious groups from ENDA. The values of people of faith are important, too, and Sen. Toomey’s amendment attempted to strike a balance between ENDA and religious tolerance. Toomey’s amendment was defeated, making it nearly impossible to support ENDA as it stood. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups also opposed ENDA as a threat to religious liberty. [Louisville Courier-Journal, 11/14/2013]

Paul: “I Find It Offensive To Compare The Civil Rights Struggle Of The 1960s To The Issues Associated With ENDA.” In an op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal, Rand Paul wrote, “I find it offensive to compare the civil rights struggle of the 1960s to the issues associated with ENDA. It is an affront to the civil rights activists who actually had to face the viciousness of a Bull Connor. It is an insult to compare something like the vote on ENDA to the adversity African Americans once faced during a particularly tragic time in our history.” [Louisville Courier-Journal, 11/14/2013]

Paul Said “ENDA Could Have Gutted Court Rulings On Marriage In Kentucky And In Other States.” In an op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal, Rand Paul wrote, “ENDA could have potentially gutted court rulings on marriage in Kentucky and in other states. I actually agree with President Obama that the definition of marriage should be decided by the states, not federal law. Surely, The Courier-Journal does not also compare some of the nation’s leading religious organizations, or perhaps even the president, to segregationists.” [ Louisville Courier-Journal, 11/14/2013]

Paul Avoided Commenting On Arizona’s S.B. 1062 “Right To Discriminate” Legislation, Saying “Let Me Get Back To You.” According to Politico, when asked about Arizona’s S.B. 1062, which would allow business owners to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of their religious belief, “As Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign a bill that would allow businesses to deny services to gay customers, top national Republicans just want the issue to go away….‘I haven’t really looked at it,’ said Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. ‘Let me get back to you.’”[Politico, 2/25/2014]

Paul Said Of Arizona’s S.B. 1062 “The Right To Associate And The Right To Be Free In Your Business Decisions Is Out There” But That “The Marketplace Ultimately Works To Prevent Discrimination.” CNN reported that “Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said in 2014, as Arizona was considering a similar law -- with major backlash then, too, which led Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure -- that the marketplace ultimately works to prevent discrimination. ‘I think that the right to associate and the right to be free in your business decisions is out there,’ he said then. But Paul added: ‘I'm not real excited about laws that sort of say you can deny people service.’” [CNN, 3/29/2015]

Rand Paul Quipped That “I Can’t Understand Why You Need Three Bathrooms.” While speaking to Republicans in Allen County, Ohio, Paul remarked, “They’re wanting to get the ministers sermons because the ministers have been criticizing the government’s involvement in the hiring or the bathrooms. I don’t know, I don’t remember. I can’t understand why you have to have three bathrooms. Someone’s gonna have to explain that to me.” [Rand Paul, Allen County Republican BBQ and Rally, Lima, OH, 10/21/14, American Bridge Tracking Footage]

Paul Said He Would Support Obama Administration Policy Started Under Secretary Clinton Tying Foreign Aid To LGBT Rights. According to Bloomberg, “How far was Paul willing to take this stance [of boycotting nations like Saudi Arabia with policies the United States disapproves of]? I asked if he endorsed a policy initiated by the Obama administration, under then-Secretary Clinton, to make gay rights a precondition of aid to human rights NGOs. ‘I would think we’d give to a lot of countries that don’t have good records on gay rights,’ Paul told me. ‘I mean, any Muslim country probably has an abysmal record. Obviously, I’m not a big fan of most aid to begin with, so would I tie aid to behavior? Absolutely. For example, I introduced an amendment in the foreign relations committee to not give aid to countries that will put people to death for changing your religion in interfaith marriage. I’d be happy to say, for countries that punish you for homosexuality, too. Do any of them put people to death for that in Muslim countries? I’d be happy to say no.’” [Bloomberg, 3/24/2015]

August 2014: Paul Vowed He Would Use Executive Orders “Only To Undo Executive Orders. There’s Thousands Of Them That Can Be Undone.” According to WFPL, “Asked directly if he would issue executive orders as president, Paul said the only circumstance would be to overturn the ones made by his predecessors. ‘Only to undo executive orders. There’s thousands of them that can be undone,’ said Paul. ‘And I would use executive orders to undo executive orders that have encroached on our jurisprudence, our ability to defend ourselves, the right to a trial, all of those I would undo through executive order.’” [WFPL, 8/12/2014]

Paul Said He Would “Repeal All Previous Executive Orders” In One Of His First Acts As President.” According to Breitbart, “MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — In front of a boisterous pub crowd of young voters here, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) ripped into President Obama over executive overreach and even vowed to repeal ‘all previous executive orders’ in one of his first acts as president, should he run….Paul continued by noting that he thinks Obama’s executive overreaches are worse than any individual policies he’s pushed. ‘The worst thing this president has done is not Obamacare,’ Paul said. ‘It’s not Dodd-Frank. And they’re horrible. They’re terrible. They’re the worst pieces of legislation in a couple decades. But the worst thing this president has done is run roughshod over the separation of powers.’” [Breitbart.com, 9/11/2014]

Paul Says Obama Executive Orders Are “Arrogant” And “The Exclamations Of An Autocrat.” At the Values Voters Conference, CNN reported that “Sen. Rand Paul castigated President Barack Obama on Friday for his use of executive action, arguing the President is an ‘arrogant’rleader whose policies resemble those of an ‘autocrat.’eaThe resident acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution,’hthe Kentucky Republican said. ‘He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.' These are not the words of a great leader. These are the words that sound more like the exclamations of an autocrat.’ At the beginning of the year, Obama declared 2014 as a ‘year of action,’tvowing to pursue his agenda on his own if Congress gets bogged down in partisan gridlock. In July, for example, he signed an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” [CNN, 9/26/2014]

Rand Paul Joked At Conservative Conference: “I Wasn’t Sure [President Obama’s] Views On Marriage Could Get Any Gayer.” According to the Los Angeles Times, at the Iowa Faith and Family Coalition: “U.S. Sen. Rand Paul remarked on President Obama's decision to publicly support same-sex marriage by saying, ‘Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer’… ‘It did kind of bother me though that he used the justification for it in a biblical reference,’ he continued to more laughter. ‘He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage. And I'm like what version of the Bible is he reading?...I don't know what version he's getting it from…Now that doesn't mean we need to be harsh and mean and hate people...But that doesn't mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We've got 6,000 years of tradition.’ He said it was time for traditionalists to stand together to ‘save the Republic’ and that the traditional family unit needed to be defended.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/12/12, VIDEO]

MAY 2013: Rand Paul On Homosexuality: We Don’t “Need To Be Harsh And Mean And Hate People.. We Understand Sin And If We Believe It’s A Sin, We Still Understand That People Sin.” At Iowa Faith and Freedom, Paul said, "Now that doesn't mean we need to be harsh and mean and hate people.. We understand sin and if we believe it’s a sin, we still understand that people sin. We understand that we – we’re not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people. But that doesn't mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We've got 6,000 years of tradition. There’s a lot of stability. Even beyond religion, there’s stability in the family unit. Just from an anthropological point of view, the family is a really important thing and we shouldn’t just give up on it." [Rand Paul, Iowa Faith and Freedom, Waukee, IA, 5/12/2012]

MAY 2013: Paul Said “I Don’t Think I’ve Ever Used The Words ‘Gay Rights’ Because I Really Don’t Believe In Rights Based On Your Behavior.”In an interview with Commonwealth Network 2, Paul said, “I think my point that I was trying to make is that government has been involved in marriage for a while. It’s been at the state level and I think if we leave it at the state level, there will be room to disagree, but it will probably be within certain parameters. Like I said, I don't think it will be with multiple humans, and I think it will be human and human. And so I didn't mean that to mean anything other than that I think the government will still probably be involved in defining marriage to a certain aspect. I don't think we're going on towards polygamy or things beyond that.” [Commonwealth Network 2, 5/12/2013]

In Response to Glenn Beck Asking Whether the Windsor Decision Could Lead to Polygamy, Rand Paul Responded By Wondering Whether Humans Would Marry Non-Humans. Responding to a question on where same-sex marriage could lead by Glenn Beck, Rand responded, “I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening – whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?” [MSNBC.com, 10/7/13, AUDIO]

• Paul Tried To Clarify His Remarks: “I Don’t Think It Will Be With Multiple Humans And I Think It Will Be Human And Human.” In an interview with Fox News, Paul said, “I think my point that I was trying to make is that government has been involved in marriage for a while. It’s been at the state level and I think if we leave it at the state level, there will be room to disagree, but it will probably be within certain parameters. Like I said, I don't think it will be with multiple humans, and I think it will be human and human. And so I didn't mean that to mean anything other than that I think the government will still probably be involved in defining marriage to a certain aspect. I don't think we're going on towards polygamy or things beyond that.” [Fox News, America Live, 6/26/2013; VIDEO]

Rand Paul And Mike Huckabee Will Appear In Anti-LGBT Documentary Featuring “Ex-Homosexuals” And Anti-LGBTQ+ Activists. According to Salon: “Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, two prospective GOP presidential candidates, appear in a new documentary that depicts LGBT equality as a threat to religious liberty. The documentary also features appearances from so-called “ex-homosexuals” and a conservative activist linked to anti-gay human rights violations Slated for a February 24 release at the National Religious Broadcaster’s convention in Nashville, Religious Right activist Janet Porter’s “Light Wins: How to Overcome the Criminalization of Christianity” features testimony from a wide range of right-wing activists, including anti-feminist crusader Phyllis Schlafly, evangelical polemicist David Barton, creationist Ken Ham, and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.” [Salon, 2/12/2015]

• Anti-LGBT Documentary Featuring Rand Paul And Mike Huckabee Also Features Scott Lively, Who Claimed Credit For Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law And Is Linked To Ugandan Anti-LGBTQ+ Measure. Salon reported that “Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, two prospective GOP presidential candidates, appear in a new documentary that depicts LGBT equality as a threat to religious liberty…..The documentary also includes interviews with Scott Lively, a notorious far-right activist whose international crusades against homosexuality have come under media scrutiny in recent years. While Lively has distanced himself from the legislation, he has been linked to a Ugandan measure, since struck down, that imposed the death penalty for homosexuality. Though he hasn’t embraced his role in that country’s anti-gay crackdown, he has personally claimed credit for Russia’s draconian law against so-called gay propaganda.” [Salon, 2/12/2015]

On 2010 Christian Coalition Survey, Paul Supported Enforcing 1993’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy. In the Christian Coalition 2010 Voter Guide, during his race against Democrat Jack Conway, Paul indicated support for “enforcing the 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military.” [Christian Coalition Survey, 8/11/2010]

Paul Said Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “Should Be Decided Through The Military, Not Through Political Posturing.” According to Bluegrass Politics: “Kentucky’s U.S. Senate candidates were asked their opinions on the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the wake of this week’s unsuccessful effort by Democrats in the U.S. Senate to repeal it. Paul and Conway are vying on the Nov. 2 ballot for the seat now held by Republican Jim Bunning, who is retiring….. Paul’s campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, said Thursday in an e-mail without elaboration, “Dr. Paul believes this is a matter that should be decided by the leadership of the military, not through political posturing.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, Bluegrass Politics, 9/23/2010]

Paul Said Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “Worked Relatively Well” And The Military “Have A Different Set Of Rules, So I Don’t See As The Same As I See It In Regular Society.” Asked by the Louisville Courier-Journal Editorial Board whether he favored abolishing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Paul responded: “What I’ve seen with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is it’s worked relatively well. I think the changes that they have now, and basically I would call it a non-fraternization policy in the sense that it actually works on both sides. You’re not supposed to fraternize heterosexual or homosexual….. But I think that the military by large who have to live in close quarters does have rules that the rest of us don’t have. For example, you’re not allowed to campaign in your uniform. You are not allowed to date your superior officers. You’re not allowed to commit adultery. It’s illegal to commit adultery. You can be court-martialed for it. So they do have a different set of rules, so I don’t see as the same as I see it in regular society. They do have a different set of rules.” [Louisville Courier-Journal Editorial Board, ">