Rand Paul: The Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling was appropriate; Update: “Regrettable overreach,” says Ted Cruz

posted at 4:41 pm on June 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

The latest in the continuing saga of Rand on the Skywire, trying to inch along the tightrope between libertarians and conservatives towards the GOP nomination on the other side.

Love him or hate him, the 2016 debates will be roughly 8,000 percent more interesting with him onstage than they would be otherwise.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

“As a country we can agree to disagree,” Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. “As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.”…

Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called “someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion.” He said Kennedy “tried to strike a balance.”

Many social conservatives won’t be happy to hear him talking about leaving things to the states, and they really won’t be happy with him waving off the culture war, but they were never Paul’s target constituency in the first place. If you’re a young, bridge-building, aspiring GOP nominee, the politic answer here is obvious: Support traditional marriage at the state level and oppose any lawmaking on the subject at the federal level. Be a socially conservative small-government federalist and hope that both social cons and moderate/libertarians each cut you enough of a break on your middle-ground position that the Skywire doesn’t sway too much. That’s the smart play for someone in Rand’s position (at least until he makes it to the general, when any misgivings about gay marriage at the state level will begin magically to melt away). Just one question: Does he support state traditional marriage laws at the state level? I honestly can’t tell. This morning he told Glenn Beck this:

“I think traditional marriage laws are now affirmed in 34 states,” the Kentucky Republican said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning, calling it the “good side of the ruling.”

So he does support them. But wait — a few months ago, he said this:

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.”

As I said at the time, that’s the sort of thing you often hear from libertarians who want the government, and not just the federal government, out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think Rand could get away with that position in a GOP primary, which is why I assume he’s still nominally in favor of state marriage laws. Whether he’d have an Obama-esque “evolution” in support of liberalizing those laws to include gays once safely elected, though, I leave to you to decide.

Via Noah Rothman, here he is with Beck having a not-especially-libertarian exchange about whether legalizing gay marriage necessarily means legalizing polygamy. Beck’s more concerned about that than Paul is — Rand clarified what he said here about non-humans later in the day, in fact — but he does seem to see some hazy role for government in legislating morality. Some of his dad’s fans won’t like that, but plenty of mainstream conservatives will.

Update: A “wacko bird” divergence:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8:

Today’s Supreme Court decisions on marriage are a regrettable overreach against the will of the people as expressed through large, bipartisan majorities in Congress and directly through referendum in California – a markedly blue state.

Nothing in the Constitution compelled this result, and, once again, the Court has chosen to substitute its own views of public policy for the democratically expressed will of the voters.

The family is the fundamental building block of society, and I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Cruz is so passé.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Nothing in the Constitution compelled this result, and, once again, the Court has chosen to substitute its own views of public policy for the democratically expressed will of the voters.

Indeed. Representative Democracy has sunset. Now comes an ever encroaching super-state.

nobar on June 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

Left to the states how??? What does that mean exactly? The State of California had its say in a referendum but an unelected lower court stopped the will of the people in the state. This ruling seems to make the states powerless. Although I admit to finding much of the decision incoherent so perhaps I’m too dense to understand the wisdom of the Supremes and could have it all wrong, while Rand has it right.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Rand Paul apparently hasn’t read Scalia’s dissent where it’s made clear that the majority ruling states that there is no rational reason to support traditional marriage other than hatred and malice towards homosexuals.

gwelf on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults.

Which is all marriage is. Anyone who has gone through divorce will tell you this.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I’m with Paul on this.

War with Syria is on the horizon, our government is watching our every communication, and our borders are on the brink of complete decimation, along with our sovereignty.

But let’s focus on whether buttsex is within the bonds of matrimony, because that’s totally f**king important.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Cruz gets it, he is not pandering like Paul is or seems to be.

D-fusit on June 26, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Excellent.

But let’s focus on whether buttsex is within the bonds of matrimony, because that’s totally f**king important.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

You’re an idiot.

There was a case brought before the court. That’s our system at work. Do you suggest we upend due process in addition to stealing information.

You really do identify with Snowden the commie-lover.

Capitalist Hog on June 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM

But let’s focus on whether buttsex is within the bonds of matrimony, because that’s totally f**king important.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Anybody who graduated high-school understands the myriad logical-fallacies employed by Madison Conservative during his courtship with Edward Snowden.

Maybe this is the angle he’s going for to get back into the Green Room — angry, just not profane.

Capitalist Hog on June 26, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Now what’s a “gay” activist going to do? Spend the next 50 years saying we’re still not there yet and prosecute anyone who uses the H-word?

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Love him or hate him, the 2016 debates will be roughly 8,000 percent more interesting with him onstage than they would be otherwise.

No, they won’t. It will be another exercise in self-annihilation and finally close the GOP’s coffin.

Republicans aren’t largely libertarians and the base is mostly principled voters who lean conservative. Injecting Paul into this discussion will further obliterate any connection voters have to the party. It will serve to confuse and obfuscate core principles, not articulate them.

Combines with the tactical electoral effort, which is already driven by pencil neck geeks who think pleasing appeals to certain demographics will win the race, this is a sure recipe for disaster.

In the end, Paul is just another curmudgeon. If he had any respect for the party, he would stay out of the race.

Marcus Traianus on June 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

he is not pandering like Paul is or seems to be.

Pandering to states rights people? Isn’t that his base?

rndmusrnm on June 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

But let’s focus on whether buttsex is within the bonds of matrimony, because that’s totally f**king important.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Yeah talk to me again when churches and faith-based organizations begin to be sued by LGBTQ… activists for not letting them marry in their church.

MikeknaJ on June 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

One more reason Paul will never be Prez.

KBird on June 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Update: A “wacko bird” divergence:

HA!

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I will be so glad when issues like this are put to bed. They’re just used to destroy the truly important ones like fiscal realities.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 26, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Republicans aren’t largely libertarians and the base is mostly principled voters who lean conservative. Injecting Paul into this discussion will further obliterate any connection voters have to the party. It will serve to confuse and obfuscate core principles, not articulate them.

Why are you afraid of the having the debate? If the electorate is as you say then Paul would lose, where’s the harm? I’m guessing what you’re really afraid of is that your ideas will be rejected by the party and you’ll be left at the kids table.

rndmusrnm on June 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Cruz gets it, he is not pandering like Paul is or seems to be.

D-fusit on June 26, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Yep!

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Broadly, you’re right. If the house is burning down we probably ought not to be arguing about the color of the drapes.

The problem is the prop 8 ruling was pretty bad. They’ve essentially crippled state referendums and made governors miniature dictators who may enforce the law at whim. I’m not even sure these bozos realize the problem they created with the prop 8 decision.

I was kind of expecting DOMA to be struck down and I wasn’t too concerned about it, but this prop 8 decision has me greatly dismayed.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Left to the states how??? What does that mean exactly? The State of California had its say in a referendum but an unelected lower court stopped the will of the people in the state. This ruling seems to make the states powerless. Although I admit to finding much of the decision incoherent so perhaps I’m too dense to understand the wisdom of the Supremes and could have it all wrong, while Rand has it right.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Unfortunately, as a citizen of the state of California, I can’t blame SCOTUS for that. It’s the officials in Sacto, most notably the Gov and AG, who have been derelict in their duty to defend this law.

JohnGalt23 on June 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Realistically, why would anyone listen to a politician of any stripe?

The only hero I ever had was my late dad. He wasn’t perfect, to be sure.

But he never steered me wrong.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Which is all marriage is. Anyone who has gone through divorce will tell you this.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Well, that is what many liberals also think, marriage is just a contract…and most superficial people think that also, it’s just a piece of paper.

And the American flag is just some cloth, and a promise is just some words…the constitution is just a bunch of paper, and war is only about killing…

Simple minds create simple ideas…

right2bright on June 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM

What a boob. “Left to the states”??? First off, there’s no way to “leave marriage to the states” when you have federal public policy that acknowledges marital status. Second, Prop 8 was “the states”, but, well, it’s more or less gone now, too. He should’ve just declined to respond.

jas88 on June 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM

I would love if we have debates between Cruz/Paul in 2016 on issues like this and other things.

Both are good men. Both want what is best for this country. Both men listen to the people.

These two debating – I have no problem with.

gophergirl on June 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Cruz is correct.

Rand Paul sounds like an idiot on this one — praising the overturning of DOMA as a victory for state’s rights, while a state simultaneously loses its voter-approved definition of marriage before the Supreme Court because of a technicality.

Pathetic.

dpduq on June 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I would love if we have debates between Cruz/Paul in 2016 on issues like this and other things.

Both are good men. Both want what is best for this country. Both men listen to the people.

These two debating – I have no problem with.

gophergirl on June 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM

In an ideal world, Paul would be the Democrat candidate and Cruz would be the Republican candidate, and we might actually have a serious debate between two intelligent men over real, serious issues of actual import.

Sadly, we don’t live in an ideal world.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:13 PM

dpduq on June 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

DOMA and Prop 8 are two different things.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I believe in states rights which is what this country is about unless it involves a constitutional infringement. Nothing in the constitution gives the federal government the power regulate morality, otherwise all murder cases would be judged in federal court and not in local state courts. If an issue of morality of what constitutes murder is decided on the state level, should it not also be the same for marriage?

William Eaton on June 26, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Broadly, you’re right. If the house is burning down we probably ought not to be arguing about the color of the drapes.

The problem is the prop 8 ruling was pretty bad. They’ve essentially crippled state referendums and made governors miniature dictators who may enforce the law at whim. I’m not even sure these bozos realize the problem they created with the prop 8 decision.

I was kind of expecting DOMA to be struck down and I wasn’t too concerned about it, but this prop 8 decision has me greatly dismayed.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

This^ DOMA should have been struck down, but Prop 8 should have been upheld on the same principle. That state and through their voters have the right to make marriage laws. The fact that the State of California refused to represent their voters should not have resulted in a default judgement for opponents of Prop 8.

melle1228 on June 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM

No, they won’t. It will be another exercise in self-annihilation and finally close the GOP’s coffin.

Republicans aren’t largely libertarians and the base is mostly principled voters who lean conservative.
Marcus Traianus on June 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I think lean is the operative word here. As you say, Republicans aren’t largely libertarians. They are not largely social conservatives either or we would have had different nominees. There is no one Republican “base” that can stand on its own. Pick your battles wisely, which we never do so yeah, I think we’ll all self-destruct by spitting at each other with our principles and the Santa Clause party will nail that coffin lid shut.

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Prop 8′s decision makes the perfect case for National Divorce. Without standing in the courts, citizens no longer have a recourse to petition of grievances in their states. Any law this is unacceptable to a governors admin just has to be ignored and it dies because the appeal power has been taken from citizens. That is tyranny. So congrats gays, you got marriage, but you killed representative democracy to do so.

nobar on June 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Which is all marriage is. Anyone who has gone through divorce will tell you this.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I work in Family law. This is entirely true if the marriage ONLY involves the two entering into the contract. If it involves children, than marriage takes on a whole different meaning and state involvement goes way beyond “contract law.”

melle1228 on June 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM

melle1228 on June 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I understand your angst, but the SC acted properly regarding the case of Prop 8.

It’s a two edged sword, with future ramifications that work against liberals, too.

They can’t always go running to Federal courts when they don’t get what they petulantly demand, either.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM

The problem with Rand Paul is that he does not base his principles upon Natural Law. Our country was founded on Natural Law principles, and those principles were enshrined into our govt’s framework. Now, the Leftists are successfully dismantling our American beliefs…one by one.

The problem with Libertarians is that they do not base their principles upon Natural Law. A case in point is the right to life, which they are more than happy to declare a civil right within the purview of the states, which they claim should determine according to wit or whim whether to protect that right. The right to life, however, just happens to be one of the absolute most fundamental UNALIENABLE rights (i.e., not a civil right), and it is the function of our govt and the duty of our officials to protect that natural, God-given right for ALL Americans, born & yet-to-be-born.

The problem with our Supreme Court justices is that a majority of them do not understand and/or respect Natural Law principles, which is why we now have a ruling that allows our govt to violate our unalienable rights in favor of a contrived civil right that has as its goal to demoralize Americans. What a sad, sad day for our country.

On another note, our legislature needs to begin impeachment proceedings against the 5 justices that voted down Natural Law.

TXJenny on June 26, 2013 at 5:23 PM

There is no one Republican “base” that can stand on its own.

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM

THIS. It’s why I generally support our social conservative allies even though I am not one myself. Without them we have no chance of winning anything ever again.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:24 PM

It’s a two edged sword, with future ramifications that work against liberals, too.

They can’t always go running to Federal courts when they don’t get what they petulantly demand, either.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM

No, the ramifications don’t work against liberals. You’re assuming a Republican governor would ever not enforce the law to the detriment of liberals. This pretty much will never happen.

I mean, I would love it if we gave as good as we got, but we never do.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

THIS. It’s why I generally support our social conservative allies even though I am not one myself. Without them we have no chance of winning anything ever again.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Well that probably dooms them.

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I mean, I would love it if we gave as good as we got, but we never do.

Doomberg on June 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I know.

I just come on relentless; liberals have much to worry about.

All that matter is how we use it.

And I don’t mean Congresscritters.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Sorry but there’s no fix here.
These are the kinds of things a culture in its death throes argues over.

Cleombrotus on June 26, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Which is all marriage is has become in our atomized, self-absorbed culture. Anyone who has gone through divorce will tell you this.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

FIFY, knucklehead.

Cleombrotus on June 26, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Sorry but there’s no fix here.
These are the kinds of things a culture in its death throes argues over.

Cleombrotus on June 26, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Someone left the door open and the tent’s too big. Mob rule trampled on the ties that bind and the Bill of Rights are now just guidelines.

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I knew it wouldn’t take long for Paul to show his real colors.

lhuffman34 on June 26, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Rand Paul is going to slowly out himself as extreme as his father and become the darling of the libertarians who will whine and bit*h because social cons finally understood he had no interest in their issues.

katiejane on June 26, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Left to the states how??? What does that mean exactly? The State of California had its say in a referendum but an unelected lower court stopped the will of the people in the state. This ruling seems to make the states powerless.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Exactly. All that is left to be done, is after the will of the people is voiced and passed by votes of the people in that state, just make sure you steer the challenge to a leftist court or justice..of which there are many to choose from.

Great.

Mimzey on June 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM

As I said at the time, that’s the sort of thing you often hear from libertarians who want the government, and not just the federal government, out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think Rand could get away with that position in a GOP primary, which is why I assume he’s still nominally in favor of state marriage laws.

Define “Marriage”… no really.

I think Rand might be in favor of “traditional” marriage laws… or (and/or?) perhaps some form of domestic partnership for the legal equivalency without it being “marriage”.

Given all the “compromise” there has been on this issue in each state; there is now a whole lot of what you might call “grey area” in which to play around and dance on the issue. This isn’t really a “two sides” sort of thing, but a whole lot of sides, all in different areas on the white/black spectrum who think their shade of grey is the correct one.

Handled correctly you could easily end up forcing the person who tried to attack on that issue to defend against any shade of grey not theirs… which might get them to back off.

gekkobear on June 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM

rhombus on June 26, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I think it’s more like:

“The three Men I admire most,

The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost,

They took the last train for the coast…”

Cleombrotus on June 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM

He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

Yeah, because that’s what he’s supposed to be doing.

xblade on June 26, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I expect libertarian nut-jobs like paul to now join with the socialist extremists in supporting human-dog marriage, human-cat marriage, human-gold fish marriage, human-dildo marriage, human-vibrator marriage, human-inflatable-doll marriage, etc., etc., etc.

TeaPartyNation on June 26, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Well okay then. I guess it must be time once again to pin all our hopes on one guy. This has always worked out so well in the past…

cynccook on June 26, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Unfortunately, as a citizen of the state of California, I can’t blame SCOTUS for that. It’s the officials in Sacto, most notably the Gov and AG, who have been derelict in their duty to defend this law.

JohnGalt23 on June 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

To defend Prop 8? They’re probably worried their homes have rocks thrown through windows, their cars vandalized, and their children’s photos put on Wanted Posters to show the evil children of evil h8ters.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM

sorry – make that “homes [will] have….”

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I must admit I am confused by all of this. Does this mean that if a couple or thousands of homosexual couples get married in Massachusetts they can move to a state that does not allow same sex marriage and take their “marriage status” for lack of a better term, with them? And the new state has to allow them this privilege?

If this is the case, I predict a new airline, called Rainbow Air with homosexual marriage junket rates.

Or, am I looking at this all sideways?

Amjean on June 26, 2013 at 6:12 PM

it’s about time America had a prominent clean and articulate Texan.

joeindc44 on June 26, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Rand Paul says Kennedy tried to strike a balance is like King Solomon actually splitting the baby in half. It doesn’t work anymore.

At least I don’t need to waste a vote on Paul either. 2016 is getting simpler for me to just stay home.

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 6:45 PM

AMERICAblog headline – “GOP Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court DOMA decision could lead to bestiality”
HOTAIR headline – “Rand Paul: The Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling was appropriate …”
AMERICAblog + HOTAIR = Rand Paul says bestiality appropriate.

By the way, here is Rick Santorum’s statement.

Verona, PA – Former Republican presidential candidate and Patriot Voices Chairman Rick Santorum issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8:

“I am very disappointed with today’s Supreme Court rulings regarding marriage. The DOMA decision iAMERICAblog + HOTAIR = Rand Paul says bestiality appropriate.s another case of the high court overstepping its role, just as it did with Roe v. Wade. Further, the Proposition 8 ruling refuses to affirm the process envisioned by our founders for the American people to express its will. These great moral issues of our time should be left to the democratic process, not to five activist judges. Time and time again, when the definition of marriage has been put before the people, we have affirmed the unique and irreplaceable role the union of a man and a women play in society. The family unit, with a married mother and father, is a special and unique institution and gives children the maximum opportunity to thrive. I join Americans across the country in continuing to fight for a definition of marriage that gives children their birthright, a mom and a dad, and our country the best chance for a great future.”

gocatholic on June 26, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Oops. I pasted that in there twice. Sorry. I think you can figure it out.

gocatholic on June 26, 2013 at 6:58 PM

To defend Prop 8? They’re probably worried their homes have rocks thrown through windows, their cars vandalized, and their children’s photos put on Wanted Posters to show the evil children of evil h8ters.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM

You want the nice office? You want the driver and the limo? You want the lunches with contributors and the interest groups?

Then dealing with the fringe is the price you pay.

Do your jobs, CA AG office, or give the jobs up to those willing to do so…

JohnGalt23 on June 26, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Heh. Y’all are so cute.
Thinking that whoever you vote for in about three and half years might actually make a difference, or even slightly slow down the slide into oblivion.

LegendHasIt on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I’m with Paul on this.

War with Syria is on the horizon, our government is watching our every communication, and our borders are on the brink of complete decimation, along with our sovereignty.

But let’s focus on whether buttsex is within the bonds of matrimony, because that’s totally f**king important.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Of course you’re with Paul on this because it’s the result you favor. It’s no different than Al Franken demanding repeated recounts till he got the result he desired then declaring everything over. You get the result you desire no matter what kind of twists and abuses of the law need to be created to do so. What makes you different from a leftist?

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

One more time…

It is NOT a function of federal government to wrap its boney claws around our social/cultural lives, beyond the bounds of what it is actually legally able to do, according to the Constitution.

Asking federal government to be the final arbiter on all things cultural and/or social, is equal to handing over the keys to Pandora’s box, and if folks can’t see that, they DESERVE the results of what will happen after we’ve given government all-encompassing power over our social and cultural lives. Eventually the political opposition will use that power in ways you may not like. Think the “Patriot Act” here….Good intentions, but once the political opposition got its paws on it, well, we now have a wide net cast around all of us, in order to “keep us safe”. PANDORAS BOX—defined!

Social/cultural issues are used as “wedge” issues all the time by BOTH parties. But what it comes down to is this:

One cannot shout from the roof-tops about the horrors of big government telling us what to eat, what to drive, what kind of insurance to have,…etc…and then turn around and WANT government to grow bigger, just to satisfy their personal societal and cultural whims and wishes.

I.E. – big government is big government. You either want it, or you don’t. You either “get” that in order to have a “moral government” you focus on those WITHIN government, not governmental policy, or you don’t.

Talismen on June 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The constitution says nothing about marriage. So, While I agree with Cruz’s ultimate view of the big picture, the state can simply take up the matter in another election and ban it again if they want to. I think the SCOTUS should have reversed the district court and said the voters spoke, just like they said elections have consequences with the ACA, well so do votes.

Though with that all said, I dont really care about this. Its not a constitutional right to be married.

If you want to kill your baby and be married to your sister, move to NY or CA. If you want traditional marriage and have the right to self defense, and live where killing your baby is NOT ok, Move to Texas.

TX-96 on June 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Rubio
-
Paul
-
Cruz

diogenes on June 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Cruz for POTUS

ultracon on June 26, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Bring on polygamy.

There are several wonderful married ladies at work and I’d be honored to be their….second husband.

:-)

KirknBurker on June 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

The issue was left to the states. DOMA let the states do whatever the heck they wanted to regarding marital arrangements. But the federal government had to have some clear-cut definition to follow. Now it’ll have a wide range of possible definitions (How long until someone sues to have civil unions in traditional-marriage-only states count as marriages for the purpose of federal benefits?) plus the chaos of dealing with those who got married in a same-sex marriage state before settling in a traditional-marriage state (or those who, solely for the purpose of gaining federal benefits, chose to get married in a same-sex married state but retained residency in a traditional-marriage state). Without a unifying definition that can be applied to all 50 states, the details on who gets what when and where are pretty hazy. The fighting has just begun. But it’s all federal fighting–the states are no more free or bound than they were before. Well…for the moment…

Even though Kennedy said the ruling is limited to legal same-sex marriages, I don’t understand how that could possibly last. I can’t imagine that same-sex couples in traditional-marriage-only states will allow it. This ruling, as I see it, basically sets the stage for a challenge to state laws barring same-sex marriage. (And Kennedy all but guarantees that those state laws will be declared unconstitutional, with his repeated assertions that same-sex marriages have all the dignity and yadda, yadda, yadda that traditional marriages have and that people who oppose same-sex marriage are denying those couples their dignity, etc. There’s no good way for him to backtrack on that language, and you know the four liberals are on board…so…yeah…done deal.)

Also, if a Supreme Court Justice slamming proponents of the traditional definition of marriage as a bunch of bigots (who only support that definition because they want to punish and demean homosexuals) can be interpreted as that Justice avoiding a culture war, well…I’d hate to see what Paul might consider to be engaging in a culture war. But Kennedy basically called Bill Clinton a vicious, hateful bigot…so there’s that.

butterflies and puppies on June 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

He rushed to make this foolish statement. Kennedy lit the match.

Does Rand agree with Kennedy on those who defend marriage or in his rush to try to be all things to all people did he neglect to read the ruling?

Either one, he’s playing politics.

These decisions, handed down by the Court today, affect to be limited in their reach, but they are even worse than they appear, and they cannot be cabined. They lay down the predicates for litigation that will clearly unfold now, and with short steps sure to come, virtually all of the barriers to same-sex marriage in this country can be swept away. Even constitutional amendments, passed by so many of the states, can be overridden now. The engine put in place to power this drive is supplied by Justice Kennedy’s “hate speech,” offering itself as the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Windsor. Kennedy wrote for the Court in striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the part of the act that recognized as “marriage,” in federal law, only the union of a man and woman. In Kennedy’s translation, the Defense of Marriage Act showed its animus in its very title: The defense of marriage was simply another way of disparaging and “denigrating” gays and lesbians, and denying dignity to their “relationships.” As Justice Scalia noted so tellingly in his dissent, Kennedy could characterize then as bigots the 85 senators who voted for the Act, along with the president (Clinton) who signed it. Every plausible account of marriage as a relation of a man and woman can then be swept away, as so much cover for malice and blind hatred.

As Scalia suggested, that opinion can now become the predicate for challenges to the laws on marriage in all of the States. A couple of the same sex need merely go into a federal court and invoke Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case (U.S. v. Windsor): The Supreme Court has declared now that a law that refuses to recognize same-sex marriage is animated by a passion to demean and denigrate….

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:30 PM

butterflies and puppies on June 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM

The analyses written by conservatives that I’ve read today agree with you.

Kennedy basically called us h8ers, paving the way for future litigation.

There will be continued, emboldened litigation of Christian business owners who decline to do work for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony, and intimidation and litigation against Christians and churches will widen in scope. There will be an ongoing fight over the First Amendment.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM

…you got that…right!

KOOLAID2 on June 26, 2013 at 8:45 PM

KOOLAID2 on June 26, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Sadly, I think so.

At this point it’s about time to start wondering if the hand of God has written our doom on the wall of this country and numbered our days because we have been weighed in the balance and found deficient.

Never has a country been as blessed as ours, yet as a nation we have not only not been grateful to God, but we have utterly hardened our heart and rebelled against Him.

17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Keep your gifts for yourself or give your rewards to someone else; however, I will read the inscription to the king and make the interpretation known to him. 18 O king, the Most High God granted sovereignty, grandeur, glory and majesty to Nebuchadnezzar your father. 19 Because of the grandeur which He bestowed on him, all the peoples, nations and men of every language feared and trembled before him; whomever he wished he killed and whomever he wished he spared alive; and whomever he wished he elevated and whomever he wished he humbled. 20 But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit became so proud that he behaved arrogantly, he was deposed from his royal throne and his glory was taken away from him. 21 He was also driven away from mankind, and his heart was made like that of beasts, and his dwelling place was with the wild donkeys. He was given grass to eat like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until he recognized that the Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes.

22 Yet you, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this, 23 but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the hand was sent from Him and this inscription was written out.

25 “Now this is the inscription that was written out: ‘MENĒ, MENĒ, TEKĒL, UPHARSIN.’ 26 This is the interpretation of the message: ‘MENĒ’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. 27 ‘TEKĒL’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. 28 ‘PERĒS’—your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.”

29 Then Belshazzar gave orders, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a necklace of gold around his neck, and issued a proclamation concerning him that he now had authority as the third ruler in the kingdom.

30 That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM

butterflies and puppies on June 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM

YES!

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM

AND MORE YES!!

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 9:28 PM

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM

We need to look to Christ for understanding. Church will be full this Sunday.

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 9:29 PM

At this stage, I Like Rand Paul’s personality more than Cruz’s personality but I like Cruz’s policies better than Rand’s.

Basilsbest on June 26, 2013 at 9:40 PM

We need to look to Christ for understanding. Church will be full this Sunday.

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Yes, you need all the help you can get.

antisense on June 26, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Sadly, I think so.

At this point it’s about time to start wondering if the hand of God has written our doom on the wall of this country and numbered our days because we have been weighed in the balance and found deficient.

Never has a country been as blessed as ours, yet as a nation we have not only not been grateful to God, but we have utterly hardened our heart and rebelled against Him.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM

My guess that in the blink of an eye the US has existed, it hasn’t much crossed this deity’s mind.

antisense on June 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Like I said in Ham’s post, everyone is missing the boat that is about to ram into their canoe. Kennedy opinion —> Due Process/Liberty —> 14th Amendment —> States.

John Kettlewell on June 26, 2013 at 9:54 PM

John Kettlewell on June 26, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Read this:

The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage

By John C. Eastman

…Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

There is a public policy exception—states are not required to accept contested policy judgments made by other states lest one state’s policy be foisted on every other state—but Congress sought to reinforce the public policy exception through the exercise of its constitutional power to “prescribe…the effect” to be given to state acts by confirming that no state had to give “effect” to same-sex marriages performed in other states. Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act provided as much while recognizing that some states might choose to redefine marriage to encompass same-sex couples. Section 3 of DOMA then defined marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law….

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Eastman’s work is lengthy, but quite good. These cases were a travesty. It clear that the Left has no care for the rule of law or logic.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM

antisense on June 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

The Scripture that I’d already quoted refutes your comment.

There’s also the matter of the history of our country.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Church will be full this Sunday.

njrob on June 26, 2013 at 9:29 PM

May God enable His people to be faithful.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Left to the states how??? What does that mean exactly? The State of California had its say in a referendum but an unelected lower court stopped the will of the people in the state. This ruling seems to make the states powerless. Although I admit to finding much of the decision incoherent so perhaps I’m too dense to understand the wisdom of the Supremes and could have it all wrong, while Rand has it right.

Buy Danish on June 26, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I have rhe same problem wifh understanding how was this issue left to the stattes, when obviously nobody gave a ded rat on people’s vote/decision here, in California…

jimver on June 27, 2013 at 1:03 AM

The SCOTUS disenfranchised the voters of California.

How is that justice?

Treacherous weasels.

profitsbeard on June 27, 2013 at 2:35 AM

May God enable His people to be faithful.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Take heart. Among those in the Christian groups I’m part of, people have been praying and praying and praying–fervently and with fasting–for quite a while. Do things look bad? Yes. Absolutely. But any given day, a single act–a single word–of God can turn the course of the nation. And things always tend to get a little rough before evil loses ground. ;)

I’m also encouraged that so much bad that’s been going on has been exposed. Who is to say that it was not God’s hand that uncovered all the deception, corruption, and awfulness currently going on in DC? That whole series of revelations is pretty remarkable, when you think about it. This, among other things, leads me to believe that God is not finished with America.

But as I said, behind the scenes, a passionate (and not small by any means) Church (in the big sense, not in the single congregation sense–and not even just American) is and has been faithfully praying. Again I offer you the words that were spoken at the darkest moment of the world–which came just before the brightest and best moment: Take heart. (John 16:33) :)

butterflies and puppies on June 27, 2013 at 3:31 AM

what Rand Paul and his libertarians fail to face up to, what happens when gays get married in one pro-gay state and then move with their job or for some other reason to a state that does not allow gay marriage? It will cause all sorts of problems. Problems that they won’t have to deal with in their Washington DC bubble. It has to be a federal issue. There has to be rules/reg’s from the federal level on this. This will take courage which is in short supply these days. Make no mistake, Rand Paul is a big tent libertarian.

Darvin Dowdy on June 27, 2013 at 8:05 AM