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

Hotair ^ | 06/26/2013 | AllahPundit

[jazusamo]

Rand Paul: The Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling was appropriate

WRONG!

It was appropriate only to a flaming Lib or Libertarian.

[TexasKamaAina]

Culture usually and eventually trumps law. Pursuing legal/political solutions to cultural issues is a waste of effort.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Rand, you are toast! toast in the pres primaries!!!

[DBeers]

Culture usually and eventually trumps law.

I would agree -patience... THOUGH always in the back of mind is that destruction of Sodom thing. God must of had some reason for choosing the nuclear option; I doubt that impatience was the reason.

[Alberta's Child]

If you can find the word "God" anywhere in the Defense of Marriage Act, then please cite it for me.

The DOMA was exactly what I -- and many other conservatives -- correctly said it was when it was first passed into law: blatant, calculated political pandering at its worst. The Republicans passed the bill in both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton signed it into law in September 1996 for the sole purpose of appealing to moderate voters in his re-election bid less than two months later.

That same jack@ss Clinton said recently that it was a "bad law" -- even though he signed it into law. He has no problem maintaining a position of such two-faced hypocrisy because he was as unprincipled (and unserious) a man as you'll ever meet even in Washington.

[Amendment10]

I'm not a fan of RINO Rand Paul. But not only have the states never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate marriage in any way, but DOMA was arguably a violation of the Constitution's Clause 3 of Article VI which prohibits religous tests for federal employees.

Article VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (emphasis added).

[sand88]

Ted Cruz is quite literally the only man I trust in Washington right now.

Cruz is the only one I trust.

I heard Cruz on Levin's show tonight. He was great...

[Alberta's Child]

Keep in mind that the institution of marriage became a complete farce in this country once government got involved in it. Heck -- in every state you have an entire area of law (marital/divorce law) that is dedicated to the countless numbers of cases where a marriage contract is broken (even by one of the two parties) with the full approval of a court.

If any other area of law worked that badly it wouldn't even exist in the first place. Would anyone even bother signing a contract to buy a home, for example, if the guy who sold it to you could come back 15 years later and make you give it back to him? ROFL.

[Smokin' Joe]

Many social conservatives won’t be happy to hear him talking about leaving things to the states

BS.

I'm thrilled. A lot more should have been left to the States, and the Federal Government kept small.

If the homos want to dominate a state, people will at least be able to vote with their feet.

When it's national the last line of defense is the Church and it is under attack, too.

Personally, I will refuse to recognize any homosexual union as "marriage".

[VerySadAmerican]

A “wife” can’t testify against her “husband”. If John Gotti could have married Sammy the Bull, he wouldn’t have died in prison.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

Cruz 2016!!

[FlingWingFlyer]

I just find it kind of sleazy when the American people vote on something and five creeps wearing black robes say, “Oh no you don’t”. I don’t think that’s the America that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

[DBeers]

The DOMA was exactly what I -- and many other conservatives -- correctly said it was when it was first passed into law: blatant, calculated political pandering at its worst.

IMHO you are getting hung up on proving and support your initially concluded point and as such you miss the forest for the trees.. It could be that Clinton was pandering. I would agree that MOST politicians are simply leaves blowing in the wind that will take the path of least resistance.

HOWEVER, while dismissing the spineless and unprincipled politicos I think you as well errantly dismiss the motivations of PEOPLE they were attempting to pander to.

As an example look at the Immigration Reform debate. The politicians who pander by seeking to build a border fence or hire more Border Patrol agents do so BECAUSE the laws already in place are not being enforced.

I would suggest that DOMA at its roots was a response to the clear and present danger of leftists IMPOSING a new definition of marriage around the country. A definition that as I mentioned before is in God's domain alone.

The country faces this question more and more now with Obama in office. WHAT do you do to oppose those that not only ignore the laws but as well subvert them. Write new laws? LOL!!!

Rest assured this and other issues are far from settled.

[GeronL]

libertopian vs conservative

[Alberta's Child]

This issue is getting more and more “settled” by the day — but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Homosexuals are clamoring for the right to get married even as heterosexuals have been walking away from marriage for decades.

[Aetius]

Part of Paul’s statements make no sense. Putting aside the merits of the case and the questions about federalism, Paul says that Kennedy averted a Culture War. How? By issuing a decision applauded by the Left? He seems to be endorsing the absurd notion that to use the courts to advance a liberal policy goal is somehow being neutral in the Culture War.

And the Sup Court has not reaffirmed the right of the states to define marriage. The statements by Roberts that the decision goes no further is meaningless. As Scalia pointed out, the reasoning used by Kennedy leaves virtually no room to allow traditional state marriage laws to persist. It’s just a matter of time before this Court or another takes Kennedy’s thinking to its logical conclusion and imposes gay marriage nationwide.

[Alberta's Child]

Sure -- but let's take it one step further: The court's reasoning pretty much throws every state marriage law ("traditional" or not) -- including same-sex marriage laws -- right out the window.

If equal protection under the law means anything, then anyone can enter into a relationship with another person (or multiple people), call it a "marriage," and then tell the IRS to go "F#%& off!" when it comes time to pay an estate tax.

Mark my words on this, folks -- the legal and accounting professions are going to do wonders for their clients under this Supreme Court ruling.

[katiedidit1]

I’m stealing your post:)

[mohresearcher]

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Senor Rubio are unlikely to be the GOP nominees in 2016, and even more unlikely to be elected POTUS.

[DBeers]

This issue is getting more and more “settled” by the day — but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Homosexuals are clamoring for the right to get married even as heterosexuals have been walking away from marriage for decades.

You lost me there. It seems you support a moral relative determination of truth e.g. the definition of marriage?

For example as it relates to government not defining but rather upholding INSTEAD of the definition of marriage we discussed the definition of life (to use your argument):

This issue is getting more and more “settled” by the day — but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Euthanists are clamoring for the right to Euthanize even as People have been increasingly committing suicide for decades.