Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the government out of marriage.

Notice the Libertarian position is not the same as the mainstream "Gay Marriage" position. Libertarians would legalize Poly marriage as well, while I've had Gay Marriage Advocates give me a list of reasons why that shouldn't be legal.

While some Libertarian candidates are personally against abortion, they would be laughed out of the movement if they advocated actually passing laws at the federal level to restrict it. Hey, I'm even personally not a fan of it (though I paid for one once) but that is completely different from being willing to support their bans, and I wouldn't support someone who wanted to ban them. (And yet I work for the Michael Badnarik campaign for a little while and he was "anti-abortion")

Rand is going to have a tough time getting the republican nomination because that party hasn't quite realized that it's being to conservative and not responsible enough.

So I don't mind that he's not taking a stand on these things.

In fact, if we were in a climate where gay rights were being restricted (increased restrictions) or abortion were being fought (at the federal level) then I might be more worried about it. But we are not. W ran on a strong anti-abortion platform and nothing really happened during his term. He didn't even try. He knew it was a wedge issue, more than anything. Only at the state level are Abortions at risk.

The real crime of our time is the out of control federal spying, adventurism and rights violations.

(this is not a rebuttal to hackinthebochs who said nothing I disagree with.)

EDIT: My statements are historical fact and consistent with what's known about libertarians: They want the state out of these kinds of decisions. Yet I'm downvoted. Is it because I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't really support gay rights? Sorry, but it's true. When clinton signed DoMA with broad democrat support, I was out. Sure the republicans were worse at that time, but I'm not going to compromise the idea that I don't have a right to get married!

Even in the 1990s the Libertarians were the only party that was clearly pro gay rights and so I joined them. The past 20 years have proven me right. I take down votes (without comments or rebuttals) as merely an admission of the frustration at this truth.

After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change.

It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out.

The question is, how fast will the republican party change?

And a lot of that kind of change happens during these big elections.

So, early broad support for Rand Paul is exactly what could prompt the shift.

After all, when a party can count on a constituency (And at this point where are christian conservatives going to go?) they can take them for granted and seek out the constituency that is at risk.

That should be the Gay constituency for democrats who have taken them for granted and abused them for decades. (I'm not heterosexual, so that includes me, and that's why I haven't voted for a democrat for 20+ years.)

Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months.

That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.