Comment: RP isn't pandering when he

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The question is Ron Paul (see in situ)

RP isn't pandering when he

RP isn't pandering when he states he's in favor of civil unions? That's hypocritical, you can't have it both ways.

Actually it is libertarian and as far as he's concerned constitutional. Freedom to engage in "marriage" or a "civil union" if you prefer is pro-liberty. Restricting such an action is anti-liberty. Even the LP would disagree with you as would recent candidates like Browne (r.i.p.) and Badnarik. Sorry, saying "more of the same creepy stuff" isn't a real answer. You obviously don't like gays and find them creepy, that comes through clearly in your posts, and that's your prerogative. I do agree licensing of marriage is nonsense but one doesn't have to get a marriage license to be married anyway contrary to popular thought.

And not that I'm a fan of abortion but you're wrong that being pro-choice isn't libertarian. It was even once a part of the LP's platform. Then they amended their platform to essentially say "this is a difficult issue which should be up to the individual" which isn't exactly a pro-life position.