Walker, Jindal back Kentucky clerk on marriage licenses: ‘The Constitution is very clear’

LifeSiteNews ^ | 9/3/15 | Dustin Siggins

[BlatherNaut]

Two more GOP presidential candidates have chimed in on the issue of whether Rowan County clerk Kim Davis must provide marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

While three candidates have publicly supported Davis' right to only provide marriage licenses for man-woman couples, three others have said she must do so or resign.

This morning, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Laura Ingraham, "In the end, this is the balance that you gotta have to have in America, between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring that the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion -- you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it's a fundamental right."

Walker also said that he believes the Supreme Court erred in redefining marriage. That decision has led to Davis' circumstances, which include being in court today to face charges of contempt of court.

Yesterday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a trailing GOP presidential candidate, told Huffington Post that Davis was in the right. "I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions," said the Catholic politician.

"I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience," he said. "I absolutely do believe people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away."

[afraidfortherepublic]

Walker and Jindal agree on Kentucky Clerk — she has freedom of religion.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[Ohioan]

Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to define the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts, as well as the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It could simply take away the right to entertain suits challenging local laws on marriage, schools, legislative apportionment, etc., etc..