Can anybody clue me in of what a "Constitutionalist's" stance on Gay Marriage be?
From what I understand, it would be unconstitutional to have any legislation condemning or condoning the addition of gays into the legal term marriage - at the federal level. Does this mean that Dr. Paul would not pursue legislation on this issue at all? Does he mean to just leave it up to the states to decide?
To say that gay marriage is not a government issue and the the government should not have involvement in this issue is fine and good if gays cold marry. There wouldn't be any issue if a gay could get a states marriage license, but they can't. There needs to be more clarity in the existing law - both state and federal since taxes are paid to both entities and legal rights are applied via both entities.
I know Gay Marriage is not really a super hot election issue - at least not one you would win or lose over, but as a gay, I can see how we, as a group could potentially vote based on this issue alone. That is dangerous, I know this should not be how people vote, but everyone has that one election issue that affects them personally. That last check mark on the either the pro or con side of that issue could swing their vote either way.
Personally, I feel that all marriage at the state and federal level be converted to "civil union" and leave true marriage under God to the churches. The churches would then have ever right to deny marriage to gays.