“REPUBLICAN” CANDIDATE BLASTS “ACTIVIST COURT” FOR REDEFINING MARRIAGE
|| By FITSNEWS || Former Hewlett Packard CEO and “Republican” presidential candidate Carly Fiorina blasted this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level bans on gay marriage.
“This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be,” Fiorina said.
“The Court ruled today that all Americans should receive equal benefits and rights from the government under the law,” Fiorina added. “I have always supported this view. However, this decision was also about the definition of marriage itself. I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country.”
Wait … so she thinks state governments can define marriage? But not the federal government?
We’re confused by that logic …
The true pro-freedom position – which we have advanced from the beginning of this debate – is simple.
No government – local, state or federal – should be able to ban (or compel) marriage: Gay, straight or plural. That’s because marriage isn’t a government institution, it’s a religious one – meaning the question should be left to individual congregations. As for civil unions, we believe the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels government to acknowledge homosexual, heterosexual or plural unions.
Fiorina says that moving forward “all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today’s decision.”
Um, no.
Our efforts should be focused on extricating government – and aspiring elected officials like Fiorina – from the marriage debate altogether.
Government has no business sanctioning or prohibiting marriage, period. If gay people can find a church to marry them, God bless. And if a church doesn’t want to marry gay people, Mo’ power to them. On the other hand, government has a constitutional obligation to treat civil unions equally under the law – meaning we need to fix the definition of such relationships under the law so that government isn’t imposing on either individual liberty or religious freedom.
20 comments
If she will critize SCOTUS for “Citizens United”, then I will agree with her.
Why would Carly criticize what has been taught in every accounting I or econ I class in universities for decades?
While I generally agree that domestic arrangements are not the business of the government, the question gets more murky when the law itself confers benefits on “marriage.” If the tax code, lenders, pensions, intentional communities etc did not give unequal benefits to “marriage” the question becomes moot. If all are equal under the law, then all should be equal.
giving you a plus 100+ for bringing up that thought train….
Just Use Just Use I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk1
>vvvv
http://www.GlobalworkworldBest/ranking/homes/
I have nipples Berta, can you milk me?
Her face lift has tightened her brain in a vice grip.
now cut that out..!!
Great way to shoot herself in the foot…like she had a chance in hell.
HAS FITS CALLED HER AND ASKED HER OPINION ON THE FLAG???????
Does she watch Southern Charm?
Has she been on Trump Force One?
Has she unfriended anyone on Facebook for having different political opinions?
Can she see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
She’s just another boring, banal hater. She should move to South Carolina so she can fit in in with people like Lee Bright.
I was attacked years ago for promoting the idea of a ‘ruling class’.
But, political neophytes like Fiorina, Carson, Trump – who have never, ever been involved enough in their communities OR their childrens’ lives to want to even run for school board – want to be president of the USA.
OMG.
We need some meaningful qualifications for candidates for Congress and the presidency and for state legislatures.
They need to put in at least 8 years in city or county government before being allowed to run for the legislature. Then, 8 years there before they are allowed to run for governor. And, 8 years there (gubernatorial incompetence doesn’t seem to grab some people’s attention until after election to the second term) before they can run for the US House. I wouldn’t make ’em serve more than 6 years before they could run for US Senate.
These are serious jobs that should be filled by real public servants. Today we seem to have too many people running for office because it’s an easy way to fame and fortune for the untalented. If we made it a little harder, more of them might drop out and sell used cars.
Both your position and Carly’s position are just stupid. Marriage has always been a “contractual relationship” I.E. a legal relationship, governed by law. Religion was involved because for most of history the Religion and the State were one and the same.
In ancient Rome. (where most of our modern marriage laws originated) you did not need a priest to get married.
Would you please explain why you always put the word “Republican” in quotation marks. Is there some obscure point that we’re supposed to get? Do you think that nobody is truly a Republican?
“Wait … so she thinks state governments can define marriage? But not the federal government?”
Way to totally miss the concept.
Not surprising. Not surprising at all.
Carly is the one of the onlyRepublican candidates who supports equal rights for same-sex couples. While Obama and Clinton were campaigning against gay marriage, she was providing equal benefits to all gay employees at HP. Yet you go ahead and create an attack piece on her because she also believes in States’ Rights, judicial restraint, and religions freedom. Why don’t you appreciate the fact that Carly has repeatedly spoke out against her party on this issue and hasn’t backed down on her support for equal rights.
Carly is trying to play both sides. She still feels that Indiana’s “religious freedom” law allowing discrimination against gays is fine.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/01/capital-download-carly-fiorina/70787634/
The court ruling says not one word about defining marriage. It is all about treating people equally. If Fiorina can’t even read and understand a court ruling she has no place running for public office.
Yes.