I've always said that the states have the right to decide (the issue of marriage equality.) * * * I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise, * * * 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."
So let's parse this hypocritical drivel. First, he says "that the states have the right to decide." Well, why should the states have the right to decide any more than the federal government. If you are a true libertarian you don't believe that government at any level should have the right to decide how people live their own personal lives. For instance a true libertarian would follow the Libertarian Party platform on this issue which says
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
(I am not a Libertarian, but this aspect of their platform is something agree with and coincidentally it largely mimics the Democratic platform.)
Next he says that while the states should have full authority to dictate how people live their individual lives, the federal government should have no role in the matter. This is strikingly at odds with the provisions of the federal Constitution which insure that not only the Federal government but the states cannot infringe on personal rights. It appears that while he has a problem with federal authoritarianism he is totally comfortable with state dictates.
But his hypocrisy goes much, much further. First, he says as a personal matter he believes in something he refers to as "traditional marriage." That's fine. He's entitled to any personal beliefs he has. That is not the question. The only question is what does he believe government should or should not do regarding the issue of marriage equality. On that subject he says "Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise." So not only does his libertarianism begin and end only with actions of the federal government but he is perfectly happy to have a state government that denies people their personal liberty simply because that denial comports with his personal beliefs.
Not satisfied with exhibiting hypocrisy and authoritarianism he adds some incoherence.
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."
He doesn't want the Federal government promoting something he doesn't believe in but by extension he's more than happy with having the federal government promoting something he does believe in. And then he goes on to say I don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. Well, guess what? That is exactly what the proponents of marriage equality are after. Neutrality. What they don't want is for the federal government or the states to be biased in favor of one type of marriage by prohibiting others from enjoying the benefits of marriage.
If anyone ever had any doubts as to whether Rand Paul is a libertarian or for that matter someone who even believes in the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, his discussion of marriage equality leaves no doubt as to his true thinking. He only believes in rights that are consistent with his own personal beliefs and is more than happy to have the states infringe upon rights and for the federal government to be restricted in its ability to guarantee rights, Unless of course those federal actions are consistent with his "personal" beliefs.
Some libertarian! Rand Paul is nothing nothing more than a right-wing theocrat, and a hypocritical autocrat, pretending to be something else.