I have to admit, we've gone from lamenting the destruction of the institution of marriage to saying we need to destroy the institution of marriage much quicker than I anticipated.
I also had not anticipated that it would be Rand Paul who would go this route, but in hindsight he is the perfect man for the job.
In an op-ed for Time Magazine, Rand son of Ron concurs with Justice Clarence Thomas who, as you may recall, declared that gay marriage rights are just another government entitlement.
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.
Of course Justice Thomas also downplayed the unequal, emotional injury to gay couples by arguing that slavery and internment did not deprive African-Americans or the Japanese of their dignity, but I digress.
Rand goes on to ask if the best way to protect liberty is by getting out of the liberty business altogether.
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.
Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.
Some people may disagree with that. I'd say government took a giant leap forward on Friday by creating a more just union in more ways than one.
So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?
And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?
I'm sure most people would say what the Supreme Court has done is spread liberty to people who previously had none.
For Rand Paul, the dissemination of liberty is not cause for celebration; it's a cause for concern.
Rand Paul wouldn't know liberty if it smacked him in the face.