Actually, all this stuff Infintium has provided about Paul has been interesting and I agree for most practical purposes there's not much difference between him and the democrats on the position of gay marriage.
But I won't be voting for him and here's why.
1. I think the taxes thing is a conservative/libertarian wet dream.
The way he wants to incorporate it is dangerous, in my opinion, abolishing taxes on the theory that we will have sufficient revenue, when neither side shows any particular interest in cutting spending, the difference is where they intend to spend.
The President doesn't have sufficient pull to control Congressional spending. But, in the event it could work, I would work the other way around--cut the spending (and there is enough unnecessary spending going around without willy-nilly cutting programs that may help people). I'd pay down this monstrous debt we're saddled with. And then, when we have actually proven we are fiscally responsible, then maybe I would ease the transition by lowering taxes, holding, lowering again, monitoring as we go along perhaps with the ultimate but patient goal of abolishing taxes. (However, personally, I'm not for abolishing the income tax. I don't think the tax is the problem, the waste is) His position on a tax revolution is flawed.
2. While I think states rights are fine for some things, there is an inequity in basic human rights between state to state. Texas will always execute more people than, say, Pennsylvania (although it appears we will be having an execution shortly as the governor recently signed a death warrant) and definitely more than New Jersey. And Infintium hasn't given me really any evidence that Paul will seek to abolish the death penalty completely, although I believe he thought he was (Paul does take the position the federal death penalty should be abolished). The federal government isn't all-wise, the states certainly aren't and leaving some things in the hands of the state is tantamount to denying rights.
3. Affirmative action may be legalized discrimination. But nonprotection is de facto discrimination. The pragmatic US motto is "All men are created equal, but some are created more equal than others". We have seen in our past what occurs when there are not legislative protections. Those legislative protections came into being because they were necessary (although you can make an argument they could be better implemented.) Case by case, you can call what Paul proposes equal, but when it comes out in the wash, we will still have those who are let in and those who are left out and it will have nothing to do with their abilities and everything to do with a comfort factor and perceptions. What Paul calls equality, I call sanctioned freedom to discriminate. Perhaps he has a higher faith in people than I do.
But people will do what they can do. What discrimination we've ended has come when the government finally said "You can't."
. And yes in society we do sometimes judge people by a few quotes, but his record has gone beyond just a few quotes. I don't know if he's a bigot or not, from what I've seen I would say, yes, but I don't know for sure. And like you said, this brings up questions as to if he's fit to be the President of the U.S.
