“Where do you draw the line? If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repressions and things that come with it — so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise. Where do you draw the line?” “And if in fact a person can arbitrarily draw it here, why not could someone else draw it arbitrarily somewhere else? There needs to be rule of law. Marriage has for millennia been defined as that between a man and a woman universally.”2. He’d Rather The Government Get Out Of “The Marriage Business” Altogether Than Allow Same-Sex Marriage After the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, Bevin was hardly reticent about voicing his displeasure, penning a long-winded diatribe on his website in which he promises to protect the rights of religious county clerks. “It is understood that Kentucky must uphold the new law and find a way to process and recognize same-sex marriage,” he writes. “However, that does not mean we must do so at the expense of the constitutionally afforded religious liberties of other Kentucky citizens.”
“Ultimately, I believe the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. We can comply with the law while protecting our citizens’ rights to freedom of religion simply by separating the religious covenant of marriage from the legal, contractual relationship established by marriage as recognized by the state. The two are separate and they should be treated as such. Two consenting adults should not need to ask for permission from the government to enter into a contractual relationship – a license should not be needed. As with other contracts, the government’s role should be limited to recording, interpreting, or enforcing such contracts in times of dispute.