There are a lot of upset people that believe in traditional marriage. They’re disappointed. They’re down right now, but the court has rules. So here’s where I stand. If I’m president of the United States, here’s what would happen. If you have a church or a mosque or a synagogue, and you’re following your faith and you refuse to perform a same-sex marriage because it’s outside the tenants of your faith, in my presidency, you will not lose your tax-exempt status. If you’re a gay person, or a gay couple, and I’m president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also…
I don’t believe there is any chance for a constitutional amendment, defining marriage between one man and one woman could get two-thirds votes in the House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states… In my view if you put it in the platform, in my view, it will hurt us in 2016 because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit.
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 except for fighting for the religious liberties of every American.
Daily Caller
I've never really been a fan of Graham, and am not shilling for him as a POTUS candidate now.....but does he represent the most rational position on the Obergefell ruling, of the crop of GOP prospective?
An additional analysis by non-candidate Rep. Justin Amash, R-MI:
For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution
.
Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.
To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.
And my own analysis: We, as a society of free men....have long concluded that the marriage contract is a basic civil liberty. The denial of this contract, based on gender and sexual orientation....not only serves no purpose [as there is no burden upon the fellow citizen], but is antithetical to the very tenets of liberty....and is unequal protection under the law. The fundamental error in this entire affair, stems back to allowing the State to license this contract.
Further, this ruling is grounded in both the Equal Protection and the Enforcement Clauses [though Thomas had fair argument with respect to Kennedy's over reliance on the Due Process Clause] of the 14th Amendment; with adjudicated precedent dating back at least to the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts.
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State or Territory "to engage in real property transactions, make and enforce contracts, and have the right to “the full and equal benefit of the laws.”
And my solution to the social strife? Remove the clergy from the role as an agent of the State, and you've solved not only this problem, but further remove the religious sacrament of marriage from the purview of the State, and place it solely in the hands of the respective denominations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The fundamental error in this entire affair, stems back to allowing the State to license this contract."
ReplyDeleteSo, basically, you are putting this on the ancient Greeks.
JMJ
The early Greeks didn't issue marriage licenses.
DeleteEssentially, CI, they did. Marriages were registered by the state, recognized or rejected, with legal implications for all involved - and that last part is why. You're little naive libertarian nonsense misses the whole point here, and it shows a lack of historical knowledge. I wish more Americans had a classical history background, because they sure need it. They seem to think the modern world was invented out of whole cloth yesterday,
DeleteJMJ
One can only hope that you take your own advice. In ancient Greece, many marriages had some form of contract filed with the governing body for later potential arbitration, but not all; and there existed a myriad of inane laws encouraging stable marriage [usually unlawful to marry a foreigner] and laws punishing unmarried men of a certain age....but the city-states of Greece did not require it's citizens to obtain both permission....and pay a tax, for the State-bestowed privilege of matrimony.
DeleteIf only, you could emerge from your self-contained bubble of trying to demonize Libertarianism....while ignoring the systemic and institutionalized failures of modern Liberalism.
You also ignore my larger, and prevalent point, that of appointing clergy to act as agents of the State.....but like a good liberal, you would never turn down an opportunity to tax and control. That you support the State requiring it's permission to engage in not only a contract of free association...but one of an extraordinarily intimate nature...says volumes about you.
So, I eagerly await you dropping some 'historical knowledge' to substantiate your assertion. I too, wish more Americans had a knowledge of not only classical history, but history writ large....even more so after reading your post.
DeleteYou're obfuscating. The family is the unit that makes up a civilization. And no one is forcing the clergy to do anything. You are futzing around over nothing.
DeleteJMJ
Interesting......you make an unsupported assertion....I counter it.....and I'm obfuscating.....of the perils of a liberal mind....
DeleteYou also may wish to invest in reading glasses. I've not once ever made the claim that the clergy is forced to participate in anything. You're inventing an argument that nobody here has made. Obfuscating indeed.
The family is the basic building bloc of society....but why should you or I be required to obtain the State's permission....and pay a fee...to engage in such?
I stated that we have allowed the clergy to be empowered as agents of the State. And that is fundamentally wrong.
I guess you want more of a "church-state separation" than Jersey, does C.I.
ReplyDeleteBla bla bla. No one is forcing the church to do anything.
DeleteJMJ
And again...bla..bla..bla......nobody here is making that argument.
DeleteSelf determination is not very popular. One segment of society wants the other to do this, another segment wants to forbid that. Both feel they need the power of the state to enforce what they want.
ReplyDeleteMany are motivated by attacks on traditions, lifestyle choices, beliefs. Some are real, others are manufactured as divide and conquer strategies.
The concept of live and let live is lost because influential people convince the masses that tolerance (I do not mean the forced "tolerance" of political correctness, which is intolerant of dissent) is the same as opening the floodgates.
Tyranny, more often than not, begins as populism. Liberty is usually destroyed with fanfare and celebration. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to hell on Earth, Son, is paved with the idea of ceding control to the government.
Delete