The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that.
The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair.
Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).
Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
Yes. (I am married)
> How do you propose to handle Estate planning?
Contract law. Before you get married, sign a contract that outlines everything.
> Health and other insurance benefits?
Nothing to do with government or at least, should have nothing to do with government. The insurance companies can structure it however they want.
> Managing the custody of children of divorce?
Contract law. See above. Marriage at its heart is a business arrangement. You share resources and work for a common purpose. It's almost like you're starting a company with a partner.
Would you start a business without signing a contract that didn't outline not only how the arrangement would function, but what would happen if it were to come to an end? Of course you wouldn't.
> How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage?
It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.
In other words, if need be, one party can take another to court over the breach of a contract.
The issue today is that the government defines that contract. It specifies who the contract can be between (a man and a woman), specifies what happens when that contract ends, what benefits accrue, it essentially controls everything about that contract ... why not let the people choose what form they want their marriage to take? Why force everyone into the same universal contract that in the end doesn't really fit anyone properly because it's so unbelievably general?
> Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage
Unfortunately.
> the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
Resource sharing is by far the greatest benefit and it has nothing to do with the government. Yes, tax benefits and such stem directly from the government ... but that's about it.
Lots of people do without a lot of specific detail on that, because they take advantage of government-created standard business forms that, in addition to providing special advantages not available through contract alone, also provide well-tested default handling of common situations, including dissolution.
Much like marriage.
> It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.
But, if you want to compare marriage to a business arrangement, you should also be aware that government doesn't just manage business arrangements through general contract law, it defines a whole bunch of special standard forms for business entities which people form (various classes of corporations, LPs, LLPs, LLLPs, LLCs, heck, even general partnerships have a separate body of law from general contract law.)
So, the only way marriage is different is that government hasn't provided a whole bunch of different special forms for couples with different priorities and goals.
That's not argument against same-sex marriage; it's against all government-recognized marriage, even opposite-sex marriage.
It's funny how people come out against "marriage" only when teh gays become interested in it.
On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him."
Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967...
"Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche...
According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat...
The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.
However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well.
(I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction.
Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/
The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.