Governor Gary Johnson Reacts to SCOTUS Decisions re: Same-Sex Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Joe Hunter
Media@OurAmericaInitiative.com
801-303-7924

STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS ON GAY MARRIAGE

Santa Fe, NM, June 26, 2013 — Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, released the following statement in response to decisions announced today by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding marriage equality:

“If the federal government is going to be in the marriage business, which it is, the Court’s ruling on DOMA is simply fair. Granting the federal benefits of marriage to some, while denying them to others, is discrimination, pure and simple, and it is gratifying that the Court has recognized that fact.

“Now, it is up to individual states to decide for themselves whether the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage are available to all couples, straight or gay, without the federal government imposing its will. The Our America Initiative has already partnered with organizations in Arizona and Florida to launch ballot initiatives to allow voters to make that decision, and I am confident that other states will follow.

“At the same time, it must be recognized that the religious freedoms of Americans must be protected as well. The government has no business dictating to churches and other faith organizations how they deal with the rites of marriage within their own congregations. Our proposed amendments in Arizona and Florida protect those religious freedoms.”

Governor Johnson has announced in recent days that the Our America Initiative is actively supporting ballot initiatives in both Arizona and Florida to overturn those states’ constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

6 thoughts on “Governor Gary Johnson Reacts to SCOTUS Decisions re: Same-Sex Marriage

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    GJ said: “At the same time, it must be recognized that the religious freedoms of Americans must be protected as well. The government has no business dictating to churches and other faith organizations how they deal with the rites of marriage within their own congregations.”

    I agree with this. Churches should be able to make the choice of what marriages they wish to perform. I’m sure this will now be slugged out in each state’s legislature.

  2. Deran

    In WA State, where we legalized same sex marriage last November, it is specified that no religious group has to carry out a marriage they don’t want to. Although there is debate abt whether facilities churches rent out to straight couples for marriage, officiated by that church or not, can be then refused to rent to gays.

    I think as all marriages become secular, religious officiating will be less and less important.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, yes, churches are entitled to decide what kind of religious rites they are willing to perform, and for whom.

    The movement for marriage equality has never been a threat to that entitlement. Quite the opposite in fact — in Missouri, clergy who perform religious rites the state doesn’t like — e.g. solemnizing same-sex marriages — are liable for jail time and a fine.

  4. From Der Sidelines

    Today’s rulings were a mixed bag.

    There are two problems with the Windsor DOMA case:

    First, the Court never ordered the U.S. government to pay Windsor the $363K they owe her from the lower court judgment. Her grievance has not been redressed and it should have been.

    Second, the Court implies that the States may define marriage, and by extension restrict it with said definition. Per Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. As such, States may not infringe upon those rights and may not define marriage except in the contractual sense. The religious aspect is and ought to be up to the churches.

    As for Prop 8, all that happened was Judge Walker’s original ruling stands unless someone with legitimate standing appeals, at which point the 9th will hear the case all over again, and if that happens, it might still wind up back at SCOTUS another day, at which point they will hear the merits instead of ducking them. This was merely a procedural dismissal, and all it means is that California can do same-gender marriages again.

    The ideal solution is to get government out of marriage altogether and correctly reassert that rights are individual and not collective, and that granting of governmental or legal privileges based on marital status is discriminatory and unlawful just as it is based on gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or orientation. As such, all such privileges should be revoked and should be covered by power-of-attorney contracts.

    For the religious types arguing that their version of so-called morality should be the law forced upon everyone else, your religion is for the next life. The law is for this life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *