A few weeks ago I dinged GOP Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for some comments she made on the then future Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In a short interview with Caffeinated Thoughts Fiorina said –
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. 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.”
But on Saturday Fiorina seemed to backtrack on that a bit when she criticized the Supreme Court for what she saw as political activism and an attack on a historically “spiritual” institution.
“Marriage is an institution grounded in spirituality,” she told listeners at the Western Conservative Summit 2015 in Denver.
For millennia, through every religion in the world, marriage has meant a very specific thing,” Fiorina said.
That is very different from five Supreme Court justices saying, ‘We’re going to tell you what marriage is,’ ” she added.
We saw over the last couple days an incredible example of judicial overreach,” she said of the Supreme Court’s multiple rulings earlier this week.
We saw an example of people giving in to politics and giving up on principles,” she said, criticizing the Supreme Court as “activist judges.”
I am sorry the Supreme Court took up this case,” Fiorina added. “I think it was best left up to the states and the people to continue this discussion.”
Fiorina said her reaction to Obergefell v. Hodges’ decision did not mean she opposes same-sex relationships.
She argued a better balance is possible between gay and religious rights.
I have always been supportive of civil unions,” she said, citing moves made during her tenure at Hewlett-Packard.
I don’t think government should discriminate in the provision of benefits.”
Fiorina has long been a supporter of civil unions for homosexual couples and never had an adversarial relationship with the gay lobby, but now she seems to worry that the manner which liberal have won these battles may put religious freedom in danger. (This is a view that the four dissenting Justices on Friday’s opinion also share.) This concern for religious freedom will finally put her opposition to the LGBT lobby and could engender more support for Fiorina among conservatives. So, is this a wily political calculation or simply Fiorina’s true beliefs on the issue?
Fiorina on Civil Unions: