Posted on 09/03/2015 2:41:49 PM PDT by z taxman
Rand Paul said he supports a county clerk from his home state for standing her ground against granting marriage licenses for same-sex couples, saying there should be room "for people to exercise their religious beliefs and not be told they have to do something they find morally objectionable."
"I have never been opposed to contracts between consenting adults," Paul told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" co-host Bill Hemmer. "But I am very much sympathetic to the idea that an individual shouldn't have to sign or give their stamp of approval that they object to."
There is an easy way out for Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, though, Paul continued.
"Why couldn't we just have a notary public put their seal on it and the clerk would file it?" The Kentucky senator and GOP presidential candidate said. "My understanding is she'll file it as a contract. She just doesn't want to sign because that indicates her approval."
Part of the issue, Paul said, is that after thousands of years of there being one definition for marriage, now the rules are changing, but he believes it should remain up to states to make the decisions on marriage not the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Paul is a non-starter from the get-go on this issue.
He’s a liberaltarian who doesn’t even support state sanctioned marriage in the first place.
So for him to show up late with his endorsement is hypocritical.
“one definition for marriage”
Actually I wish that were true.
But in reality it has often included polygamy - mostly, male polygamy.
Rand Paul is on the right side of this one. However, there is no law on the subject in Kentucky that has not been struck down. We must await, as Paul suggest, the legislative change regarding a notary public.
Or they could change the entire process. In the meantime, why does a federal judge have the power to order an action that is based on no existing law? The existing law was struck down.
The intent of the Scotus ruling was to have law that did not discriminate against gay couples. If the KY legislature decides to get altogether out of the marriage license business, then that does not discriminate against gay couples.
This is so clearly a 1st Amendment religion issue.
1st Amendment and Article VI paragraph 3 issue. This is functionally a religious test for office — adherents of any non-conforming religion (meaning one which regards the purported marriage of two persons of the same sex as a moral travesty) are barred from holding certain offices.
Kasich said during the debate that SSM was now the law of the land...and we had to accept it..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.