GOP presidential candidates discuss Prop. 8 ruling

Mitt Romney issued this statement on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. 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.”

Newt Gingrich responded to the ruling with a Tweet – “Court of Appeals overturning CA’s Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let’s end judicial supremacy” – with a link to a section of his platform in which he promises to “(r)estore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.

I’ve not yet seen statements from Rick Santorum, who is dead-set against same-sex marriage, or Ron Paul, who believes government has no place in the marriage issue but personally believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.

UPDATE @ 2:31 P.M.: Gingrich just issued this statement:

“With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth 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.

“I was drawn back into public life by the Ninth 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.

“Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.

“The country has been here before. In 1856, the Supreme Court thought it could settle the issue of slavery once and for all and impose a judicial solution on the country. In 1973, the issue was abortion and once again a Supreme Court thought that it could impose a judicial solution on the country once and for all.

“Judicial solutions don’t solve contentious social issues once and for all.

“Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons if its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

“The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue. An interventionist approach by the Court on marriage will lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the federal judiciary from which it may take generations to recover.”

UPDATE @ 4:20 P.M.: Santorum tweets, “7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage.”

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • RR, Senile Columnist

    This mess showcases the need to get rid of the Initiative system. The Legislature has abdicated its responsibilities long enough. If our elected lawmakers lack the guts to take on controversial issues, who needs them? California isn’t classical Athens or the Swiss Confederation. The people have adequate means to express their views without voting for their favorite political ads on TV.

  • Elwood

    I want to marry my lovely sheep, Fluffy!

  • Truthclubber

    @2 — And I want to cater that event, Hellwoody! Lamb chops with sheep dip sauce for all!

  • Steve Weir

    Family Code Sec. 300 states: Consent: Issuance of License and Solemnization. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

    Do you, Fluffy, take this man….?