Tag Archives: marriage

Rand Paul: ‘I Don’t Want My Guns Or My Marriage Registered In Washington’

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same sex marriage in all 50 states, GOP Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shared his opinion on the issue, highlighting the fact that he thinks the federal government “should get out of the marriage business altogether.

In an editorial for TIME Magazine, Paul wrote that while he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, he still thinks all Americans should have the right to contract, and he thinks it should be a local issue, as the Founding Fathers wanted it to be, judging by the fact that “the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause “extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.”

Paul noted that while those who disagree with the ruling argue that the  court “should not overturn the will of legislative majorities,” those in favor argue that the 14th Amendment “protects rights from legislative majorities.”

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington,” wrote Paul, who added that “it seems some rights are more equal than others,” judging by the fact that while supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue that consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults when it comes to legalizing same sex marriage, they argue against the right to contract when it comes to economic liberties.

As Truth In Media previously reported, the Supreme Court was ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the plaintiff “wanted to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate but discovered legal challenges regarding his home recognizing marriage performed in an outside state.

Paul noted that while marriage is a contract, it is “more than just a simple contract.” He acknowledged the “right to contract in all economic and personal spheres,” and wrote that having this right does not mean there is not a danger of government involving itself “in every nook and cranny of our lives” and enforcing “definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.”

[quote_center]“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.”[/quote_center]

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent that 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.”

Paul agreed, writing that while he thinks the government should not prevent people from making contracts, he also thinks it’s time to “examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

Paul also questioned whether the government should “allocate any benefits based on marital status,” and whether other states will create bills like the bill seeking to abolish marriage licenses in the state of Alabama.

[quote_center]“Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do—taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it,” Paul wrote. “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.”[/quote_center]

While other GOP candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker opposed the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have said that they would not support an amendment to reverse the court’s ruling.

For more news related to the 2016 Presidential election, click here.

Alabama lawmaker threatens to ‘out’ other lawmakers’ affairs

Alabama’s first openly gay lawmaker has threatened to expose the adulterous behavior of other Alabama lawmakers after some fought the state’s decision to recognize same-sex marriage.

State Rep. Patricia Todd (D) sent out a warning over Facebook telling her colleagues, “I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about ‘family values’ when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have...I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet out.

The post was made in response to other lawmakers in Alabama who spoke out against a federal court’s decision to overturn Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage. Notably, House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R) called the ruling, “outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Act,” according to AL.

Hubbard also issued a statement following Todd’s Facebook post saying, “I consider Rep. Todd a friend, and we have always enjoyed a good and cordial relationship, so I am sorry that she is upset about my remarks.” The statement continued by saying Hubbard and Todd had a fundamental disagreement on the issue, but Hubbard wrote he wold not back down from his position.

During the weekend though, a request for a two-week stay on the ruling was granted by District Court Judge Callie Granade, according to the Huffington Post. This stay means any same-sex couples who wished to marry in Alabama will have to wait until at least Feb. 9. On that date, the court will have to make a decision whether to continue the stay on the ruling, or to uphold the court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Todd said according to various reports, her post was not made maliciously, but she “[does] not like hypocrites.” She has said if her colleagues want to defend the sanctity of “family values,” she expects those same colleagues to support those same values.