Connect with us
Pawleys Front Porch

2016

Carly Fiorina Bashes Supreme Court On Marriage Ruling

Published

on

“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.

***

Comments