Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carly Fiorina: If US Supreme Court rules for gay ‘marriage,’ we should support their decision
LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/11/15 | Dustin Siggins

Posted on 05/12/2015 6:37:01 AM PDT by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The GOP's only female presidential candidate says that she supports gay civil unions and religious liberty -- and that "government shouldn't discriminate" when it comes to benefits.

Speaking to the blog Caffeinated Thoughts, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina also said she would not support an amendment to overturn whatever decision the Supreme Court makes this summer. 

"I think the Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land, and however much I may agree or disagree with it, I wouldn’t support an amendment to reverse it," explained Fiorina. "I very much hope that we would come to a place now in this nation where we can support their decision and at the same time support people to have, to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views."

“I think this is a nation that should be able to accept that government shouldn’t discriminate on how it provides benefits and that people have a right to their religious views and those views need to be protected. We need to protect religious liberty in this country,” Fiorina added. 

Fiorina, who earlier this year criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook for attacking Indiana's religious liberty law, doubled down on this statement in an interview with Yahoo News' Katie Couric. Fiorina told Couric that "government should not bestow benefits unequally.”

“I’ve always been a supporter of civil unions. I provided benefits to same-sex couples when I was a CEO at Hewlett-Packard, and I also believe as so many do, that marriage has a spiritual foundation. Because only men and women can create life.”

Many social conservatives argue that because only relationships between heterosexual couples can bring about new human life, government should only provide benefits meant to support the continuation of the species. Fiorina, however, says that "government shouldn’t bestow benefits in a discriminatory fashion, and that people who believe marriage has a religious foundation, those beliefs should be respected. I hope we can come to that point.”

While many homosexual activists have compared civil unions for gay couples to the "separate but equal" laws meant to keep blacks and whites from intermingling prior to the Civil Rights Era, Fiorina told Couric that civil unions do provide equal treatment. "That’s what’s been going on. Government bestows in those states where civil marriage is legal, benefits are being bestowed to those gay couples and I support that.”

Fiorina also said that "it isn't" discrimination for governments to not allow gay couples to legally wed.

Spokespeople for Fiorina's campaign did not respond to LifeSiteNews' request for comment about how she would balance civil unions with religious liberty, especially in light of the weakening of religious liberty around the world and domestically.

Likewise, a question about state rights and marriage went unanswered, as did a question meant to clarify whether Fiorina believes the Supreme Court should overturn state laws on marriage. 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carlyfiorina; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; samesexmarriage; teamromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: wagglebee

Carly Fiorina: “I very much hope that we would come to a place now in this nation where we can support their (the SCOTUS) decision and at the same time support people to have, to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views.”

Am I reading this wrong? It sounds like she believes the SCOTUS is going to force homosexual marriage on the nation. Otherwise, why would we need to support religious views “at the same time?” She’s also clearly in the tank for the black robed legislators. A law abiding, moral person would (truthfully) say the US Constitution does not give homosexuals the right to marry any more than it gave women to vote UNTIL it was amended.

Any justice who votes to impose homosexual marriage on all the states is essentially a law breaker. They are breaking the supreme law of the land. Try as they might, homosexual marriage is simply not in the supreme contract between We the People and the federal government.

An honest person (and justice) would uphold the law. If the homosexualists don’t like it, they have the same legal, moral recourse as anyone else who wants to change the US Constitution. They can try to amend it.


21 posted on 05/12/2015 7:03:22 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If Supreme Court provokes Islam...


22 posted on 05/12/2015 7:05:07 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

She should stick to attacking Hitlery.


23 posted on 05/12/2015 7:05:24 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

well as soon as he makes the Big Announcement that hes going to be the first bush to run as a Democrat.... perhaps he can ask carly if she wants to join him on THAT ticket?


24 posted on 05/12/2015 7:06:21 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“If Nebuchadnezzar rules for worshiping the image, we should support his decision”


25 posted on 05/12/2015 7:09:24 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junk Silver
This is not aimed at you personally, but if you attend a bible-believing Christian church you are going to be expected to support the Supreme Court’s decision. Either your church will disregard God’s word and wed homosexuals or it will lose its tax-exempt status and be forced to pay corporate income taxes on all revenue and property taxes.

I agree that we should enact legislation to protect churches, just in case, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. There are plenty of types of weddings that are legal, but taht many churches and synagogues refuse to conduct, based on religious tenets (inter-faith, marriages of previously-married/divorced people, etc.). Even a Supreme Court that would overturn state marriage laws to allow for same-sex marriage would not force churches to conduct such marriages.

26 posted on 05/12/2015 7:09:55 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Damnation, way to shoot the foot in the face of the base.


27 posted on 05/12/2015 7:11:09 AM PDT by Old Sarge (Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junk Silver

We have religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no need for a constitutional amendment.

And for churches, well, in a few more years it really won’t matter:

Christianity faces sharp decline as Americans are becoming even less affiliated with religion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/


28 posted on 05/12/2015 7:13:15 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell



29 posted on 05/12/2015 7:13:22 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

NO!

NAY!

NEVER!


30 posted on 05/12/2015 7:15:10 AM PDT by Taxman ( I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

“Even a Supreme Court that would overturn state marriage laws to allow for same-sex marriage would not force churches to conduct such marriages. “

Sure, our noble government would never “force” churches to perform gay weddings, they would prefer to bankrupt them with the removal of tax-exempt status.


31 posted on 05/12/2015 7:15:14 AM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

she is disqualifying herself.

Social conservative she apparently is not.


32 posted on 05/12/2015 7:15:32 AM PDT by bestintxas (every time a RINO loses, a founding father gets his wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

She just ended her campaign.


33 posted on 05/12/2015 7:18:50 AM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

So Carly’s a democrat


34 posted on 05/12/2015 7:20:49 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“We have religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no need for a constitutional amendment.”

I’m sure Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Oregon bakers facing a $135,000.00 fine for their religious convictions will be happy to hear about that.

Obama has said many times that Americans are free to worship as we choose. That’s an important turn of phrase. I question whether he and his minions believe that we are free to practice our religions in our daily lives, as opposed to just on Sunday at 9 am.

This won’t be about government “forcing” anyone to do anything. Corporate taxes, property taxes and loss of deductibility of donations will take care of that. Besides many so-called Christian churches will be more than happy to disregard those two thousand year old letters and marry whoever the government says they should.


35 posted on 05/12/2015 7:21:48 AM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This is what happens when you have a “big tent”—midgets, pachyderm KP and clowns sneak in, and then think they can play ringmaster. Put Carly back to work on elephant clean-up.
Conservative Party!


36 posted on 05/12/2015 7:22:26 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Carly can go home now.


37 posted on 05/12/2015 7:24:20 AM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Homosexuals are in the process of pulling off the biggest anti-American scam in history.


38 posted on 05/12/2015 7:26:42 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Feel the nuance.

Another so-called “moderate” Republican attempting to take both sides of an issue.


39 posted on 05/12/2015 7:27:23 AM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Another masterpiece!


40 posted on 05/12/2015 7:28:24 AM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson