Religion

GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan Promises Focus on the Family that He Will Fight Gay Marriage

| by Michael Allen

During a radio interview with Focus on the Family in early October, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said that a Romney-Ryan administration would oppose gay marriage.

Rep. Ryan told Focus on the Family President Jim Daly that he is against gay marriage and was a “big supporter” of a 2006 amendment that banned gay marriage in the Wisconsin, reports RightWingWatch.org.

Rep. Ryan said: "First of all, Mitt Romney and 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."

Popular Video

This judge looked an inmate square in the eyes and did something that left the entire courtroom in tears:

Popular Video

This judge looked an inmate square in the eyes and did something that left the entire courtroom in tears:

However, Rep. Paul Ryan failed to mention that presidents from George W. Bush to Thomas Jefferson did not always defend or even enforce laws that they opposed.

MediaMatters.org quotes the Georgetown Law Journal from June of 2008:

As a matter of history, Thomas Jefferson was the first President who felt compelled to cease enforcement of a statute he regarded as unconstitutional. Believing that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, Jefferson ordered his prosecutors to cease all existing Sedition Act prosecutions. Jefferson felt constitutionally obliged to arrest the execution of unconstitutional laws. He also concluded that his Faithful Execution duty did not extend to unconstitutional laws because the latter were null and void. He was confident in his conclusions, believing there was "no weak part in any of these positions or inferences."