Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews:
Senator Rand Paul told ABC News on Wednesday that he agreed with the Supreme Court decision striking down a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that he believes marriage should be regulated by states, not the federal government. He praised the author of the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for trying to "keep up with opinion" on the issue and said that members of the Republican Party would have to "agree to disagree" on the definition of marriage.
Paul, who is widely expected to be a top contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said that he felt Justice Kennedy's majority opinion "tried to strike a balance" and praised Kennedy as "someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion. . . .
"As a country, we can agree to disagree," said Paul.
Sen. Paul’s spokesman, Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com on Thursday that, while Paul personally believes in "traditional marriage between one man and one woman," he also "believes the issue is a state issue and not a federal one."
Rand Paul is wrong on this. Marriage is not a personal issue about which one may disagree or about which the nation can agree to disagree.
Rather, the verifiable Creator has given objective publicly actionable information regarding the pre-government ontic status of marriage, and neither Rand Paul, the individual states, nor the federal government has the authority to alter this unalienable institution of society, which is also an ontic fact of life. This I assert not religiously as a matter of private belief (which is the false secular dumbed-down notion of "faith") but rather humanly and Biblically as a matter of fact grounded in the real world, just as the avant-garde Founders moved forward on the basis of the publicly actionable verifiable truth communicated by the Creator (see, for example, the Declaration of Independence).
Of course, through sheer power, human beings can try to redefine marriage. But the reality of marriage per se does not change just because arrogant human beings ascribe to themselves the authority of Deity or the power to alter the liberating constants of the universe.
Societies indeed can transform themselves by "reimagining" the definition of marriage. But then those societies are ripe for social disintegration and massive governmental control to avoid total collapse. Slavery seems a high price to buy the extremist line about "marriage equality."
When I liberate a plant from soil, it dies. A nation liberated from the soil of freedom can look alive for a while, but it dies, too. Of course, extremists can agitate for such "liberation" in the name of any number of issues, including "marriage equality," but the trajectory and unfortunate outcome remain the same.
Rand Paul has harmed his chances to win the 2016 GOP nomination for president. Americans who desire a full-bodied advance on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights would do well to press Paul on this matter -- and simultaneously to look elsewhere for more sure champions of human freedom and dignity.