[Shery]

Rand Paul is okay on some issues, but not the conservative social issues. He is like his father. But my issue often is with libertarianism, as I once felt I was one. But I began to see that other than small government, they were very much like socialists on most other issues. I distanced myself from them. Our Constitution was written with heavy influence from the Bible. You cannot read a divulgence into sin and corruption into the founders’ intentions. It’s not there. They intended it for a Christian people who held to their belief in God as creator, however much they may fall into sin. We have taken God out of everything, and cannot even mention His name unless profaning it. The Pauls try to find a middle ground by saying they believe in traditional marriage...and I’m sure they do. However, one must fight the good fight, not change your own principles to get along with others. What they are effectively saying is that our next generations are NOT worth fighting for, let them work it out themselves...I don’t want to get my own hands dirty. Those who try to be the peacemakers in social issues really might as well join the other side, as they are no good to the rest of us. Ted Cruz, on the other hand is a solid conservative and stands solidly with people of faith in fighting for faith issues. These ARE important. I agree with Mark Levin and Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and the many of us who ARE concerned for the immoral, corrupt way our country is going. As Billy Graham stated decades ago, God must judge America or He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. We are abandoning our western allies for the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama states that we’ll be Muslim by 2016. Please, dear God, remove this whole administration in some way BEFORE that happens! PLEASE!

[Nextrush]

I like the notion of the states making their own decisions but I don’t like the notion of those who oppose gay marriage being demonized and marginalized like Justice Scalia noted in his dissent.

[Steelers6]

Agree with Cruz on this one

[little jeremiah]

Rand Paul - a libertarian. So he wants fag marriage forced on the country.

He is dead to me.

[TArcher]

Shark, Jumped; 1 each.

[TArcher]

>>U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

++

Once again Cruz articulates actual conservatism despite its unpopularity and refuses to bow down to the rainbow facade.

Good for him, and good for us.

The homosexualists, OTOH, have won nothing but a Pyrrhic victory.

[markomalley]

There are a couple of things:

• The State should have never gotten involved in licensing marriage in the first place. This should have remained the sole purview of the Church (or, if you are Protestant, the equivalent ecclesial community).
  
  Pope Leo XIII said, back in 1880 (when reading this, rather than turning anti-Catholic, just please substitute the name of your ecclesial body when he talks about the Catholic Church...):

  17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

  18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

  19. Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature…

  20. Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler…

  The above was said out of concern about divorce. I can imagine Leo's head spinning around at the thought of the homosexual simulation of matrimony.
• If you look at DOMA, it, in fact, is problematic when one considers the "full faith and credit" clause (and, yes, I think the "full faith and credit" clause should apply to Concealed Carry permits, as well). Just because I agree with the effect doesn't mean that the method to get to that effect isn't flawed.
• And, frankly, what they should have done back when they wrote DOMA would have been accomplished with a far simpler piece of legislation (and one that I'd wager Sen. Paul as well as his father would approve of):

  DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ACT

  Title 1. Definition of marriage.

  For the purpose of federal regulation and federal jurisprudence, marriage is defined as a bond between one man and one woman.

  In interpreting the words "marriage," "matrimony," "wedding" and all variants of the above, federal courts will use the above definition as its meaning.

  Title 2. Not subject to judicial review.

  The definitions established in this Act are not subject to judicial review.

That would have permanently taken the issue out of the hands of the judicial activists.

[trisham]

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.”

********************************

I'm sure that there were a number of people who wanted to believe in Paul, but seriously, is anyone really surprised at this?

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.