Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney blasted today’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco striking down California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.
“Court of Appeals overturning CA’s Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let’s end judicial supremacy,” Gingrich tweeted shortly after the decision was handed down.
Romney slammed the ruling as unconstitutional in a statement.
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” Romney said. “This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
Late Tuesday afternoon, the Gingrich campaign released a statement attacking the ruling.
“With today’s decision on marriage by the 9th Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States,” Gingrich said.
“I was drawn back into public life by the 9th Circuit’s 2002 decision that held that the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. Today’s decision is one more example that the American people cannot rest until we restore the proper rule of the judicial branch and bring judges and the courts back under the Constitution.
“The Constitution of the United States begins with ‘We the People;’ it does not begin with ‘We the Judges.” Federal judges need to take heed of that fact.”
No surprise on this ruling. The 9th circus court is the most overturned in our nation and this one will be overturned as well. It’s just another step in the process and this one will go to the Supreme Court. It is sad that the will of the people is once again trampled upon by this joke of a court though.
It’s an example of the judiciary doing exactly what it’s supposed to do .
This will go to the Supreme Court, who will then have to make a decision about whether or not a specific group of people can be denied equal treatment under the law because somebody doesn’t happen to approve of them. Lots of luck with that.
I take Romney and Gingrich’s statements as additional evidence that neither is fit to be president. How do they think the judicial process is supposed to work? The courts aren’t supposed to bend to he will of a majority of voters.
@Greg:
In California, the state constitution is amended by the state legislature voting to place an amendment initiative on the ballot. Such is the case here, with Prop 8. The voters themselves voted to amend their constitution.
Now, while I agree that the case itself is within the purview of the 9th circuit, I do not agree with your assessment that the amendment is/was unConstitutional according to the federal Constitution. This is a 14th amendment argument, wherein it states, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So, the question is whether or not equal protection of the laws, under the California Constitution as amended by Prop 8, has been violated. “Equal protection” makes no distinction upon race, religion, gender, or even, yes, sexual preference. The question of whether or not a law, or in this case amendment, violates “equal protection” must first have the question applied, “Does the law(or amendment) apply to ALL people(in this case, in the state)?” Prop 8 does that. It essentially states that marriage can ONLY be between a man and a woman. It doesn’t matter if the man, or woman, is black, white, christian, muslim, hetero- or homo-. Under that amendment, no matter what else you are, you may only marry someone of the opposite gender.
So, the first question is answered in favor of the amendment. The second question that gets asked, then, is does the result of the law apply equally to all citizens. This, of course, is the sticky part. From the standpoint of the proponents of Prop 8, it does. Meaning, the result is that no matter what else you are, if you are a citizen, you cannot legally marry anyone but someone of the opposite sex, and only one at a time. If you are a hetero male you can only marry a woman. If you are a hom0-sexual male, you can only marry a woman. If you prefer polygamy, or an animal, or anything else, you can only marry a woman(one).
The opponents though, argue that the result does NOT apply equally to all citizens. To do this, they have to contort and bend in order to prove their point. From their standpoint, the operative idea in the amendment isn’t man to woman, or woman to man, but rather, the word “marry”. Where they get it wrong is in that they ARE allowed to marry someone. It’s just that the amendment’s requirement is that if they are male, the person they marry must be female, and vice versa.
From the standpoint of the homo-sexual individual, the amendment does treat them equally as compare to every other sexual orientation out there. They are not denied the ability to enter into marriage. They are just denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex, or multiple partners, or non-human partners, just like EVERYBODY else is.
Now, having stated that, I am neither in favor of, nor against, such an amendment. I do think that gay couples should have some, if not all of the benefits granted to the traditional man/woman couple. That isn’t the question here, though.
That, I admit, seems like a very sound argument.
“This will go to the Supreme Court, who will then have to make a decision about whether or not a specific group of people can be denied equal treatment under the law”
Equal treatment under the law: the reality being that there is no state in the Union that denys a marriage license to a homosexual as long as the homosexual adheres to the standard definition of marriage, one man to one woman.
The debate is NOT that gays are not allowed to marry, they are, the debate is that gays are not allowed to change the parameters of what constitutes marriage in the U.S. and history for that matter.
The argument can only be sustained if the proponents of same-sex marriage add a caveat to the claim that “gays are not allowed to marry” by saying “the person of their choice.”
If gays are allowed to participate in what is called marriage with a member of the same sex, then by what right will the nation’s government to deny the same benefit to others who would want to redefine what marriage really is?
If the excuse is that we cannot tell people who they are allowed to marry, then how can laws against polygamy hold up? If a man choose to have more than one spouse, is that not also his choice, just as a man who chooses to have a spouse of the same sex? What about the person who wants to marry their first cousin, based on the rational that their cousin is the “person of their choice?” If two closely related individuals, of consenting age, wish to marry, what is there to prevent that union and the related social benefits derived from it?
If we are going to have that discussion and change the definition of marriage, then we need to extend that choice to everyone and not just some protected/perferred minority (the lgbt).
‘Poster couple’ for gay rights in California is divorcing
Robin Tyler and Diane Olson wed in June of 2008.
Reflecting on their marriage in August of 2010, Tyler said: “Marriage is so important it’s the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older.”
Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on Jan. 25.
They had known one another 40 years and been a couple for 18.
They were married for only 2&1/2 years.
Weird that the courts telling them it was legal and OK was not sustaining to them.
What did they want?
For them to ”marry,” the definition of marriage had to change.
IT had to become a trophy in the culture wars.
Same-sex couples are inherently incapable of fulfilling real marriage’s obligations.
Gaining marriage’s benefits turned out to be somewhat hollow.
It was not enough.