In case you've never witnessed a libertarian mutual j/o session, for your edification here's Ron Paul being interviewed by John Stossel:
On the issue of gay marriage, it really doesn't matter what any of the presidential candidates think. They're not in a position to regulate marriage - as Paul points out himself, it's a state function. The only thing that really matters is whether he would oppose DOMA, and he's already let us know that he won't.
Well, I guess Paul's embarrassingly reactionary We the People Act is also a piece of federal legislation that concerns same-sex marriage, but I don't expect to see that coming before any president any time soon.
It's interesting to see a presidential candidate take up the "ban marriage" mantle. It's definitely not a popular position. Too bad his reasoning behind it is simply idiotic - the government's been involved in marriage since colonial times in the US, not since 100 years ago. And it wasn't made into a legal institution because of STD's (only a few states even require an STD screening and marriage was around long before those tests existed); it became a legal institution to have a system of allocating, assuming, and dividing property.
This might seem like a few incorrect facts, but it just highlight why libertarians annoy me to no end. They usually take their interpretation of a text (like the Constitution), assume that that reading is universal, then make up a bunch of facts and warp some reasoning to support their own personal prejudices.
Much like Christian fundamentalists do with the Bible.
I mean, how can DADT be libertarian? I dunno, but apparently it can. And forced pregnancy? Ron Paul seems to think that's libertarian as well. Maybe because "libertarian" doesn't refer to substance but rather to a style of argumentation.
But anyway, hearing ban marriage on a national medium is kinda fun. But I like the Hidden Cameras reasons better.