It's time for the federal government to get out of the marriage business, says Sen. Rand Paul, who broke his silence over last week's Supreme Court decision by authoring an op-ed in Time that explains how the government's involvement only makes marriage worse.
Paul started off by reminding readers that "The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue."
The Kentucky Republican presidential candidate said he disagrees with the Supreme Court's "redefinition of marriage," but also believes that "all Americans have the right to contract."
"I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn't mean there isn't a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won't now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others," he said.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 14th Amendment guarantees that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
"Some have argued that the Supreme Court's ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals," Paul wrote. "This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere."
While the government should not prevent people from entering into contracts, "that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage," Paul said.
Perhaps it is now time to examine whether or not the government's recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party, he added.
"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."
Paul questioned whether more states like Alabama and Mississippi would begin considering refusing to issue marriage licenses.
"The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word 'marriage.' State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected," Paul wrote.
"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?"
He concluded: "We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives. Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives."
Over the weekend, a number of other GOP presidential contenders opined on the court's decision, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee saying the court tried to "unwrite the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God" and that "we must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat," reported CNN.
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said Saturday that she supports civil unions and suggested that opponents should focus efforts on religious freedoms in public accommodations, while former Texas Gov. Rick Perry also derided the ruling, but didn't propose a next step, according to PBS. On Friday, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said the ruling was "based on a lie."
Perhaps the most tolerant was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who reaffirmed his support for traditional marriage but called for respect and protection of religious freedom, reported The Washington Times. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker previously called for a constitutional amendment to undo the court's decision, but he didn't mention the ruling over the weekend.
