NOM BLOG

Paul Ryan Unreservedly Speaks in Favor of Protecting Marriage

 

In an interview with Focus on the Family President Jim Daly, GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan offered this uncompromising defense of marriage:

"[Marriage is] the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves."

6 Comments

  1. D Carlson
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Paul Ryan!

  2. Posted October 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The winning issue is now front and center with the VP candidate.

    Mitt might just be timing this one perfectly after all.

  3. Zack
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    It will be entertaining to watch you debate Joe Biden.

  4. lonesomerhoades
    Posted October 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely. Protect this sacred institution from those who would pervert it.

  5. Jacob
    Posted October 5, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    No - the people who "pervert" it (and for this I really don't need to use quotes) - are the producers, writers, directors and everyone else involved in the show a few years ago called "The Littlest Groom", where 30 desperate women competed to marry a dwarf. Explain the legal argument for that versus keeping same sex marriage illegal? And why you know better than judges, who have been trained and educated as such do this for a living?

  6. Duncan
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Loansome: 'sacred institution' denotes marriage is only religious. In most countries (including the US), who creates the marriage license? Who writes the laws?

    No, not the churches! The government. The government doesn't care if you get married by a justice of the peace, the local mayor, or your local church. They are *all* marriages. Same thing in most European countries ---for years and years and years.

    If a church doesn't want to solemnize a same-sex marriage duly approved by the state, then they don't have to.

    However, many churches and denominations do consider gay marriage part of their 'sacred' duty to promote healthy, prosperous and long-term marriages. Neither the churches nor their married congregants consider themselves 'perverted'.

    Now, what they think about Rush's four marriages, or Newt's three, or Brittany Spear's 23 hour 'marriage' ...well, they might consider that a perversion of the institution of marriage.