I did get a response last night from Dan McCarthy, the blogger in charge of the blog at headquarters. He wrote, “Dr. Paul does not favor amending the Constitution to define marriage; he wants to leave the issue to the states and limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts (as the Constitution allows) to prevent the federal bench from defining or redefining marriage for the whole country.
It looks like the Univision statement is a mistranslation, as you pointed out to me a few days ago. We have someone taking a look over the whole Univision transcript, because we’ve heard there are other mistakes as well.”

And I wrote to him, “Thanks for writing me back and helping me with those two requests (the Salatin endorsement and the marriage issue at Univision). I still don’t understand how Dr. Paul can dismiss marriage as an issue for the states. My husband and I got married in Japan and he got an American visa and was able to immigrate because of our marriage. What if I had gotten married to a woman in another country and wanted to get an American visa for her so that she would be able to immigrate as my partner? Marriage is a federal issue because it is tied to immigration law. Also my husband and I are an example of an interracial couple. Interracial marriage was once against the law in Virginia and Justice Warren led the Supreme Court in requiring that Virginia recognize the marriage of an interracial couple who married in D.C. but wanted to live in Virginia. I admire Justice Warren but I fear that Dr. Paul might dismiss him as one of those ‘activist judges’ who legislates from the bench. Well, anyway, that’s what I think.”

I’m trying, Brian, I really am!

Now that they’ve opened up the blog at headquarters for comments, there is a lively discussion going on. The word “gay” gets blocked out, but if you can think of another way to phrase it you can join in on the comments section there.

http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1227376