Skip links

2016 U.S. Presidential Contenders Comment On Supreme Court’s Redefinition of Marriage

Prescanidates

Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision ordering all 50 states to recognize gay marriage has drawn comment from all quarters, including the White House, where President Barack Obama called the ruling “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt” and ordered the building illuminated with rainbow lights in celebration.But what will our next president think about America’s new definition of legal marriage?  Candidates from both major parties spoke out in the aftermath of Friday’s announcement, revealing a field as ideologically diverse as it is crowded.Speaking in support of the ruling were …

Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Secretary of State: Clinton’s first statement was on social media, where she tweeted immediately after the ruling:

Later that evening, she made a public address. “This morning, love triumphed in the highest court in our land,” she said. “Equality triumphed, and America triumphed,” Clinton also took the opportunity to slam her more conservative opponents, saying that “Instead of trying to turn back the clock, [they] should be joining us in saying no to discrimination once and for all.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT):  The self-described “democratic socialist” and Clinton’s closest challenger on the left credited “changed consciousness” for the ruling and noted that he supported gay marriage long before Mrs. Clinton, who opposed it until recently.

“Because of the decency of the American people, because of the strength of the gay rights movement, we have changed consciousness in this country,” Sanders said. Sanders also slammed the conservative opposition, saying, “We disagree with right-wing Republicans’ definition of family values.  They think that family values are opposition to gay marriage and gay rights.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD): O’Malley, a long shot contender for the Democratic nomination, also praised the ruling while criticizing social conservatives.  “Who would have thought in just one week the Supreme Court of the United States became more progressive than every single candidate running for the Republican nomination for president?” O’Malley said to an audience in Iowa.  “There’s hope for our country.”

Lincoln Chafee (D-RI), former senator: Chafee, a former Republican, took to social media to “congratulate” the court on its decision:

Some on the right tried to appeal to both sides …

Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL): The son and brother of two past presidents criticized the ruling, but tried to strike a centrist, conciliatory tone, calling for respect and kindness from all sides.  “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): The unofficial head of the GOP’s libertarian wing said that while he personally believes in traditional marriage, he’d like to see the government stay out of it altogether.  “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” Paul wrote in an essay for Time magazine.  “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

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

Carly Fiorina (R-CA): The former Hewlett-Packard CEO told an audience at the Western Conservative Summit that she supports civil unions, but not a redefinition of marriage.  “Principles are most important when they are most difficult to uphold,” she said. “I have been an advocate of civil unions because of benefits. That is very different than the Supreme Court telling us what marriage is. Marriage is an institution grounded in spirituality between a man and woman that can bring forth life.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Rubio, a rising star in the GOP thanks in part to his demographic appeal to both young people and immigrants, said he thought the court had overstepped its bounds, but also called for civility.  “I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court,” Rubio said.

“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law,” Rubio added.  “Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

Others were more fierce in their criticism:

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA): Jindal, another young up-and-comer in the Republican party, harshly condemned the ruling, saying it “tramples on states’ rights” and will likely lead to persecution of Christians.

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” Jindal said. “This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal added in a statement.  He then raised eyebrows with what was likely a joke, saying, “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the [Supreme C]ourt.”

Mike Huckabee (R-AR), former governor: Huckabee was equally emphatic in his opposition, accusing the court of playing God.  “No man — and certainly no un-elected judge — has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Government is not God,” Huckabee wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “The purpose of marriage is to socially and biologically unite a man and a woman to create the next generation and to train the next generation to become their replacements. Marriage is a sacred covenant, not just another social contract.”

Rick Santorum (R-PA), former senator: Santorum, a Catholic, said he believed the Supreme Court based its ruling on false premises, namely, that opposition to gay marriage is based on hate.  “We have a Supreme Court that says the only reason that you could possibly oppose changing marriage laws in America is because you hate people who want to marry people of the same sex. That is not true,” Santorum said.  He said his greatest concern was for the children of same-sex unions, whom he believes will be denied “their birthright, a mother and a father who loves [sic] them and raises them into adulthood and into good citizens of America.”

Rick Perry (R-TX), former governor: According to Perry, the court was out of bounds in ordering all 50 states to recognize gay marriage.  “These decisions need to be made in the states,” Perry said.  He compared the issue to the legalization of marijuana, which has occurred in some U.S jurisdictions, but not others.

At least one candidate seemed reluctant to comment …

Donald Trump (R-NY): The bombastic billionaire was unusually circumspect in his comments regarding Friday’s ruling.  “I support traditional marriage,” he said in an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper.  His reluctance to say more on the issue appeared to be based on his own history of multiple failed marriages.  Asked whether being married to three separate women qualifies as “traditional,” Trump said it was “a very good point.”

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing same-sex “marriage” nationwide, some states are not taking it lying down.

The State of Alabama has decided not to issue any more marriage licenses, while the State of Texas has told court clerks they may refuse marriage license applications from same-sex couples.

Reuters reported that judges from Alabama’s Houston, Geneva and Pike counties put on hold the issuance of all marriage licenses, citing a provision in the Alabama State Code.

Section 30-1-9 of the Alabama Code states that “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.”

The judges in these three counties believe that the word “may” in this provision gives them the option whether or not to issue marriage.

“I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” said ​Pike County Probate Judge Wes Allen, while Houston County Probate Judge Patrick Davenport said he will withhold all marriage licenses until he fully understand the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and how it relates to the Alabama State Code.

He maintained that he has the authority not to issue marriage licenses.

“Currently Houston County is operating under 30-1-9, which authorizes the discretionary non-issuance of marriage licenses, leaving that discretion to the probate judge to issue or not issue,” he said.

Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic took a similar view. “It doesn’t say a probate judge has to issue a marriage license. I’m waiting on that. I will not be doing anymore ceremonies. I’m going to stop as of today issuing marriage licenses,” Hamic said.

Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who earlier this year told the state’s probate judges to not cooperate with a circuit court’s ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” on Friday called the Obergefell decision “even worse” than the Court’s 19th-century decision to uphold racial segregation.

“I believe it’s worse because it affects our entire system of morality and family values,” Moore told CNN.

“There is no such thing as same-sex marriage in the constitution. The words are not there, we’ve never had it in our history,” Moore said. “Five judges on the Supreme Court, or justices, have presumed to find a fundamental right which has no basis in the history or logic or tradition of our country.”

Moore added: “I think the law of the land is plain. It’s the United States Constitution. Not an opinion of the Supreme Court which contradicts that law.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday condemned the high court’s decision, calling it a “lawless decision by an activist court.” Paxton told state officials that they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons.And, according to Time, Mississippi state attorney general Jim Hood said the state is waiting for the local federal court to order county clerks to begin issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. Another official, Mississippi judiciary chairman Andy Gipson, suggested that the state should consider not issuing marriage licenses altogether as a result of the ruling.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who recently declared his candidacy in the 2016 presidential race, said his state has “no choice” but to comply with the Obergefell ruing.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing same-sex “marriage” nationwide, some states are not taking it lying down.

The State of Alabama has decided not to issue any more marriage licenses, while the State of Texas has told court clerks they may refuse marriage license applications from same-sex couples.

Reuters reported that judges from Alabama’s Houston, Geneva and Pike counties put on hold the issuance of all marriage licenses, citing a provision in the Alabama State Code.

Section 30-1-9 of the Alabama Code states that “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.”

The judges in these three counties believe that the word “may” in this provision gives them the option whether or not to issue marriage.

“I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” said ​Pike County Probate Judge Wes Allen, while Houston County Probate Judge Patrick Davenport said he will withhold all marriage licenses until he fully understand the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and how it relates to the Alabama State Code.He maintained that he has the authority not to issue marriage licenses.

“Currently Houston County is operating under 30-1-9, which authorizes the discretionary non-issuance of marriage licenses, leaving that discretion to the probate judge to issue or not issue,” he said.

Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic took a similar view. “It doesn’t say a probate judge has to issue a marriage license. I’m waiting on that. I will not be doing anymore ceremonies. I’m going to stop as of today issuing marriage licenses,” Hamic said.

Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who earlier this year told the state’s probate judges to not cooperate with a circuit court’s ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” on Friday called the Obergefell decision “even worse” than the Court’s 19th-century decision to uphold racial segregation.

“I believe it’s worse because it affects our entire system of morality and family values,” Moore told CNN.

“There is no such thing as same-sex marriage in the constitution. The words are not there, we’ve never had it in our history,” Moore said. “Five judges on the Supreme Court, or justices, have presumed to find a fundamental right which has no basis in the history or logic or tradition of our country.”

Moore added: “I think the law of the land is plain. It’s the United States Constitution. Not an opinion of the Supreme Court which contradicts that law.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday condemned the high court’s decision, calling it a “lawless decision by an activist court.” Paxton told state officials that they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons.And, according to Time, Mississippi state attorney general Jim Hood said the state is waiting for the local federal court to order county clerks to begin issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. Another official, Mississippi judiciary chairman Andy Gipson, suggested that the state should consider not issuing marriage licenses altogether as a result of the ruling.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who recently declared his candidacy in the 2016 presidential race, said his state has “no choice” but to comply with the Obergefell ruing.

If you are curious to see what States are resisting the Same-Sex “Marriage” decision Click here.

Share with Friends: