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.
Good thing she never had a chance at winning.
Sorry honey. We’re still “supporting” their stupid ObamaCare decision.
I am glad these things are coming out early in the game, and people are saying how they feel way upstream to allow us to make intelligent decisions and determine which candidate or candidates most closely align with our own viewpoints.
Not a my house she doesn’t.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Good thing she never had a chance at winning.
_______________________________________
Maybe she could endorse pro-dope positions and go for the libertarian vote.
What exactly does “support their decision” mean?
I don’t marry people, I don’t have a bakery or floral shop. I have never been invited to a same-sex wedding, so I am at a loss as to how I would need to support their decision.
Two-sided issue. On the one hand, she’s saying “support the way our system works.” On the other, she’s accepting what could be a loaded, politically and ideologically liberal court if Obama gets to appoint just one more justice—which means she’s accepting perversion of the system while pretending all is well.
Not a chance Carly. The SC does not have the prerogative of changing the traditional meaning of marriage. That is above its pay grade.
At least she’s consistent in her position about homosexuality, even so much as to make the left look bad.
“I don’t marry people, I don’t have a bakery or floral shop. I have never been invited to a same-sex wedding, so I am at a loss as to how I would need to support their decision.”
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.
Rather than carry on about a constitutional amendment that will never happen, conservative politicians should be drafting legislation protecting churches from this obvious and well-orchestrated assault.
Wrong Answer, Sweetheart.
This just illustrates the fact that decades of voting for the “lesser of evils” is just pushing the GOP further and further to the left.
A contradiction that has already proven a total failure in Indiana.
She is unfit to serve.
She is already over, and she just started.
Wasn’t Carly Fiorina’s campaign interesting? While it lasted.
Not to mention Roe v Wade
Right along side Carly.
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.