When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant. In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. Issues such as hospital visitation would be left to the states, and could change along with public opinion. Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Taking a similar tack on abortion, Paul told reporters that the federal government should not regulate abortions but should leave it to the states. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church - not the day they received their marriage license from the state. His vote was among the majority of "nay" votes cast to defeat the initial measure in the U. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act. In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart , Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition. She noted that the Constitution talks about equality and inalienable rights and asked Paul why he did not want to give every citizen access to marriage. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny. HR ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process. Asked what would happen to the government-conferred benefits of marriage in such a system, Paul spokesman Kate Schackai said there would be no federally conferred benefits — no tax benefits or other special rights.