Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”Here is just another example of Rand as a technocrat for the state, rather than a true small government person. It also displays his role in diluting the libertarian message and linking it with the state.
The focus should never be on how this group or that group is treated on tax forms. That is a statist question that assumes a tax role for the state. It is as far from a libertarian position as you can get. By Rand mixing the tax question, with his position on gays, he again seems to be doing what he does best, never, ever talking about eliminating the state role, but simply redefining how the state can coerce---and doing it with clever language and proposals that appear to be libertarian.
Keep in mind, when it comes to drones, Rand is not against the US government using them against Americans. He is simply in favor of some kind of "judicial process" before a drone strike is ordered. And, he has not even stated his opinion on the use of drones overseas.
When it comes to foreign aid, he is not for eliminating it all right away---just for certain countries.
With his "don't ask don't tell" tax form proposal, he appears to be slipping in a "live and let live" point, but by doing so in the context of discussing tax forms, he is endorsing in someway the current tax system.
The Rand Paul formula on all issues appears to be for him to word things in a way that straddles him in two contradictory camps, seemingly positioning himself favorably with both groups. And doing this by raising a "libertarian" perspective that never ever gets to the heart of libertarian principles, and instead results in a position that involves a role for the state that any true libertarian would find abhorrent.