ADVERTISEMENT

Now that candidates have had time to digest the Supreme Court ruling and have began putting out lengthier statements on the case, it’s worth looking at them individually since the topic will be heavily discussed in the upcoming primary season.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rand Paul wrote an op-ed for Time Magazine where he laid out the case for getting the government of the marriage business entirely. Here is an excerpt from that piece:

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple 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.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

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.

Ted Cruz has gone on the record saying that states which were not parties to the case argued before the Supreme Court do not have to comply with the ruling. Story from Politico:

“Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it,” the Texas Republican told NPR News’ Steve Inskeep in an interview published on Monday. Since only suits against the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky were specifically considered in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which was handed down last Friday, Cruz — a former Supreme Court clerk — believes that other states with gay marriage bans need not comply, absent a judicial order.

“[O]n a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case,” the 2016 presidential contender added, “but there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgement.”

Marco Rubio offered a quite tempered view saying that, as of the ruling, it is now the law and we must comply with it. Story from Christian Today:

In a statement posted on his website, Rubio said while he still advocates traditional marriages between men and women, the Supreme Court ruling giving same-sex couples the right to get married must be followed.

“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law,” the Republican senator said.

He nevertheless stressed that marriage is “the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman.”

The presidential aspirant also said that individual states should be allowed to enact their own laws on same-sex unions.

“People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court,” Rubio said.

“This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years,” he added.

The senator further said that the issue on gay marriages “is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being.”

Ben Carson offered his thoughts via the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.

I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.

I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.

Carly Fiorina said that marriage is a religious institution and the Supreme Court is redefining it in the face of historic precedent. Story from The Hill:

“Marriage is an institution grounded in spirituality,” she told listeners at the Western Conservative Summit 2015 in Denver.

“For millennia, through every religion in the world, marriage has meant a very specific thing,” Fiorina said.

“That is very different from five Supreme Court justices saying, ‘We’re going to tell you what marriage is,’ ” she added.

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision Friday that all states must recognize same-sex marriages under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Fiorina said Saturday their decision stole an opportunity from Americans to organically decide the issue themselves.

“We saw over the last couple days an incredible example of judicial overreach,” she said of the Supreme Court’s multiple rulings earlier this week.

“We saw an example of people giving in to politics and giving up on principles,” she said, criticizing the Supreme Court as “activist judges.”

“I am sorry the Supreme Court took up this case,” Fiorina added. “I think it was best left up to the states and the people to continue this discussion.”

Mike Huckabee is calling for civil disobedience among county clerks and officials. Story from CNN:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee urged Christian leaders to channel Martin Luther King, Jr. by resisting the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

Huckabee pointed to King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which the civil rights leader advocated non-violent resistance to racism, saying that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

“I don’t think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice,” the Republican former Arkansas governor said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“May I ask, are we going to now discriminate against people of conscience, people of faith, who disagree with this ruling?” he said.

He said governors and attorneys general should wait for legislation implementing the Court’s ruling to be in place before they allow same-sex marriages.

“I’m not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, well, it’s the law of the land because there’s no enabling legislation,” he said.

He also said President Barack Obama’s administration’s move to light the White House the color of the pro-gay rights rainbow flag opens the door for Huckabee to one day set up a nativity scene on the executive mansion’s lawn.

“If I become president, I just want to remind people that please don’t complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas and say, ‘If it’s my house, I get to do what I wish,'” Huckabee said.

Rick Santorum said the Supreme Court decision upset the foundation of the world. Story from Mediaite:

“Justice Kennedy said the only reason that any could oppose gay marriage is because they hated gays and lesbians, which almost stops you in your tracks,” Santorum said. The 2016 hopeful then went on to say that changes in culture have resulted in the change of laws and words, and that Kennedy’s swing vote could have cataclysmic consequences by re-defining marriage.

“A 5-4 decision is going to try to affect the basic foundation of America, and frankly, now, with America leading the way, potentially disrupting the foundation of the world.”

Jeb Bush says it is an issue that should have been left to states for a decision. Story from the Washington Times:

The GOP presidential candidate said that the court should have left the decision up to the states.

“I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments,” he said. “In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

Lindsey Graham said the ruling puts this issue to bed and the Republican Party should remove the goal of a Federal Marriage Amendment from the official party platform. Story from NBC News:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that if the Republican party doesn’t change its official position on same-sex marriage it will “hurt” the GOP in 2016. In 2012, the Republican platform read, “We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Echoing former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Graham argued that Republicans should abandon that official 2012 position. Graham continued, “What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court’s ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American.”

Chris Christie believes the power should rest with the states and disagrees with the court ruling. Story from nj.com:

Gov. Chris Christie’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning gay marriage was the following: “I think this is something that should be decided by the people of the state and not imposed upon them by a group of lawyers siting in black robes at the Supreme Court”

Donald Trump says he supports “traditional marriage” and disagrees with the Supreme Court Ruling. However, Trump was grilled by a CNN host over his three marriages. Story from Bloomberg:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says that he supports “traditional marriage” but that gay people who might question whether his three marriages qualify as traditional “have a very good point.”

“They have a very good point,” Trump said. “But, you know, I’ve been a very hardworking person. I’ve had—actually, I have a great marriage, I have a great wife now. My two wives were very good, and I don’t blame them. But I was working maybe, like you, 22 hours a day.”

Host Jake Tapper said he wasn’t asking Trump to explain his divorces, but Trump continued, saying, “I blame myself because my business was so powerful for me. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”

Asked again what he would say to a married gay person questioning him on the issue, Trump said, “I really don’t say anything. I’m just, I’m just, I’m for traditional marriage.”

That’s pretty much the wrap-up on the Republican side. The prevailing view seems to be that this is an issue that should be left to the states and the voters to decide. Clearly there will be some debate over it within the GOP field over the next several months.

18 COMMENTS

  1. Sadly even in the USA there are Americans who HATE our US Constitution & refuse to accept EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW for all citizens. An American is, and always has been, a person who CHOOSES to live under the enlightened ideals of our Declaration of Independence & a government specifically defined by our Constitution.

  2. Omigod, youse guys is right!!
    I just seen a movie where a woman marries a TEDDY BEAR!!!
    It’s Armageddon!!!!

  3. Five liberal activist UNELECTED Lawyers — Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — have plunged our nation into moral decay, and created a lack of trust in the US Supreme Court for years to come!

    These Ugly Five disregarded All Laws — Natural and Constitutional — to push forward their sickening liberal agenda! The only remedy right now: they must be impeached, and sent to jail for this travesty!

    This lunacy must be reversed! Marriage is, has, and always will be the union between a man and a woman — in order to procreate, thus ensure the survival of our species!

    Allowing genetic freaks — Gays — to marry is deplorable (for they won’t procreate, just sodomize each other with their unnatural “lifestyle”) but, what is truly sickening is allowing these evolutionary dead-ends to adopt children! How can anyone agree to allow innocent children to be exposed to such aberrant, sickening and disgustingly unnatural behavior…?!

    Instead of putting these genetically disordered beings in Mental Institutions — until a cure for their sickness is found — these sickos can now legally marry and pass on their sickness to innocent children through adoption…?!

    WOW — America, Qvo Vadis?

    • You clearly do not comprehend the purpose of SCOTUS and why it is that they are not elected. Hint, it is for a reason. Furthermore, they have not disregarded any constitutional law. What you refer to as a liberal agenda is the upholding of the Constitution. So if that is “liberal” so be it. However, you don’t seem to grasp the equal protection clause or the concept of fundamental rights. Yes, marriage is a fundamental CIVIL right. The argument against marriage equality that you made is one based upon religious views and, as such, it has no place in our laws or our Constitution, or have you forgotten about the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

      Also, there is a concept known as judicial scrutiny, it is the basis upon which fundamental rights and violations of equal protection are based. The one that applies to marriage equality, as marriage has already been deemed a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia when they overturned anti-miscegenation laws, is strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny hold a three pronged test:
      A. Does the Government have a compelling state interest that is furthered by a law; that is to say, the law is necessary and crucial instead of merely preferred.
      B. The law must be narrowly tailored, which is to say that it cannot be vague and thus subject to capricious and arbitrary application.
      C. The law must be limited in its scope so as to be as least restrictive as possible.

      While, B and C are clearly met by the very fact that it only applies to same-sex marriages. However, to argue that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting marriage equality that is necessary and crucial to the security and interests of the state and the nation is patently absurd. The religious views of a small minority of Americans does not, in any way, shape, or form, constitute a necessary and crucial interest.

      As such, it cannot be argued in any remotely rational reason that the SCOTUS Justices violated the Constitution or otherwise failed to uphold their oaths of service.

      • There’s much he doesn’t comprehend. This latest screed barely scratches the surface.

      • I had said elsewhere that I would have preferred to have the Court simply refuse to hear the case. Then, voters in the states would have had to gone to the trouble of reversing the Defense of Marriage Act Secured (by the) States–or “DOMASS.”

        Instead, the Court saw it as a human rights issue–a civil rights issue. And if that’s the case, “justice delayed is justice denied.”

        But the problem with that the Court is slightly ahead of history, inviting a backlash.

      • What have we here — a leftist little lawyer: Sam Levi.

        Aside from Swastika Boy, we now have Lawyer Boy doing his best to “justify” the liberal agenda of the majority of SCOTUS.

        No wonder Shakespeare had the famous line of what needs to be done with lawyers to save society… for your ilk use pernicious sophistry and verbose legalese TRYING to obfuscate the truth.

        It is apodictic that marriage is the union between a man and a women (in order to procreate). Therefore, “marriage” between man and man, or woman and woman, is not only unnatural, but a social absurdity ( for they won’t procreate).

        Instead of recognizing this natural law (and the US Constitution that was written by our Forefathers who NEVER would have accepted the Roman Decay of homosexuality as valid form of human behavior… That’s were the purpose of SCOTUS comes in — interpretation not law creation…. you twit!) or refusing to hear the case — the leftist wing of SCOTUS jumped at the opportunity to turn their ugly agenda into unconstitutional LAW making!

        The fact remains that 5 unelected leftist lawyers have plunged our nation into a nightmare of moral decay for years to come!

        Incontestable FACT: Five Liberal Apparatchiks — Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — have achived thgeir pernicious liberal agenda and turned what from the last few decades were the signs of utter moral decay INTO LAW!

        For this travesty, these Leftist Five “judges” need to be impeached, and sent to jail.

        It’s a given why Liberal Apparatchik Lawyer Boys like you love this — for your agenda is the destruction of America.

  4. I’m beginning to wonder how long it’ll be before the latest moron-a-thon moves from entertaining to tedious.

    • Swastika Boy — still polluting this forum with your Nazi symbol, and repetitious liberal tripe…?

      Or is the moron-a-thon the Dems belly-up prostration over Hitlery Clinton…?

    • Swastika Boy — still proudly displaying your Nazi symbol with each post…?

      What ” moron-a-thon” are you talking about — the one where Hillary has been preordained to be coronated as the Democrooks’ Queen before even the Dem “debates” start…?

  5. The US Constitution is silent on marriage. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution Article VI specifies “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. President George HW Bush signed Executive Order 12731 on October 17, 1990 which spelled out the public trust. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed to pass Congress, the Supreme Court has ruled but the furor will not subside. Yelling State’s Right is a dangerous path…just ask the Confederacy.

  6. This issue will haunt the GOP for years to come. The rate of increasing acceptance for same sex marriage in this country is astonishing. Up 10 points since the last presidential election. Up 20 points since the one before that. It’s a interesting issue, because it isn’t really going to have a huge impact on our country as a whole, unlike economic and foreign policy issues, but people are so passionate about it on both sides, and the large and rapidly growing majority of Americans are passionately for it. If the Republican party doesn’t recognize this and respond, it’ll end poorly for them.

Comments are closed.