Wow, strange answer.
States don’at make federal law for gay marriage in the military, in federal employment and immigration, so you and Paul are avoiding the subject, Paul came out in support of gay marriage, he came out to end opposition to it.
Gay marriage is acceptable to you, that is why you call DOMA or a Constitutional amendment, “imposing” marriage on states, but gay marriage is not acceptable to conservatives.
Conservatives won’t be looking to support a candidate who is so anti-conservative, especially one that you even think is dishonest about how liberal he really is.
We only just finished a presidential election 5 months ago, it is far too early to be promoting the rino/libertarian.
Sigh. I looked this time to see if you kept on lying. You did. You keep on misinterpreting what has been explained to you over and over. Paul did not want to get involved in that issue at this time.
Compare the country's state to that of a homosexual with AIDS. Would the wise doctor first advise him to take scads of antibiotics, or to quit buggering?
Paul is in the "quit buggering" camp.
Just to be clear, I would much rather vote for someone who is right on ALL the issues like Senator Cruz, but I was talking about a situation where it came down to Hillary vs Paul.
And yes, if that choice was given to me tomorrow I would probably end up voting for Paul, for the reasons that I’ve stated above.
It doesn’t mean I’m promoting him, I’ve said repeatedly my problems with him, several of whom are serious. (amnesty, shiftiness) Not to mention his lack of charisma compared to Cruz.
And I’m not for gay marriage, but that’s the definition if you do a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. You’re imposing on liberal states like New York and Massachusetts that would otherwise choose a different definition. It may be the RIGHT thing to do, but it’s still imposition.