Romney, Gingrich blast Prop 8 ruling

Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, accompanied by his wife Callista, speaks at the Price Hill Chili Restaurant in Cincinnati, Ohio, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012.

/ AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday decried the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for striking down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage -- both of them targeting the judiciary system for invoking what Gingrich described as a "radical overreach" of power.

Prop. 8 was a California ballot measure passed in 2008 that amended the state's constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal. (The California Supreme Court had ruled in 2008 that same-sex couples legally had the right to marry.)

"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," Gingrich said in a statement.

He added: "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 former House speaker, who has argued at length that the president should be able to rein in the judicial branch of the government, included in a related Tweet a link to a blog post in which he recommends that the U.S. "restore 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."

Romney, meanwhile, released a statement castigating "unelected judges" for ignoring "the will of the people of California."

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said in a statement. "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."

Romney emphasized his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and vowed that "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."

The Family Research Council, a conservative organization that works at "protecting" marriage from being "redefined" to include same-sex partners, called the ruling "disappointing but not surprising."

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country," the organization said in a statement. "This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens."

Despite the decision, gay couples in California will not yet be able to marry legally in the state: The court of appeals left in place a stay from the previous ruling, 18 months ago, which will prevent same-sex marriage from becoming legal in California until the case has made it all the way up the appeals process.

The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case, though the timeline for that process remains unclear.

Nevertheless, many gay rights advocates lauded the decision. In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it a "victory for civil rights and for progress for the LGBT community and for all Californians."

"By declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit made a strong statement that laws must not target the LGBT community for discrimination and all of our state's families deserve to enjoy fair and equal treatment under the law," Pelosi said.

On Twitter, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said she was very pleased with the ruling: "We shld all be able to marry the person we love," she wrote.

[noloyalisti]

Of course Robmee and Gingrinch are for unfairness and non-equal rights. They have live their entire lives on this basis. Besides that they are racist Republicons who stand for bigotry (unless you are rich, white male like them).

[noloyalisti]

GOP Economic Terror, all we progressive can do here is to try to educate the conservatives. Of course they need to want to be educated so they can stop looking like narrow minded fools.

Both Robmee and Gingrinch are fake Christian hypocrites. The falsely claim to be religious so they can do whatever immoral and illegal deeds they want and get away with it. And the Republicon wackos are more than happy with that.

[billmcqueen]

This was intended for Don.

[billmcqueen]

Your comment would have more credibility if if appeared that you actually understand what the word bigot means.

[hotmamasito]

When will these bigoted candidates for President realize they have no right to shove their religious views on anyone.

Separation of church and state bigots.

[marychgo]

Sorry, folks, but you really DO need to understand that "marriage" has two very different meanings. "Marriage" is a religious ritual (what the Catholic Church used to (and may still) call "the sacrament of matrimony"), but it's also a legal contract that many governmental jurisdictions choose to recognize as qualifying its participants for a wide variety of special rights and privileges.

The First Amendment permits religious groups to restrict their "marriage" ritual in any way they want: to members of their own faith, to a man and a women, to people with blue eyes or curly hair. But the U.S. Constitution prevents government agencies from discriminating among citizens when they grant special rights and privileges to the partners in a "marriage."

So we have a simple choice: either government can recognize the right of any two citizens to have their "marriage" recognized and to qualify for "marital" rights and privileges, or government can get out of the "marriage" recognition business altogether, and eliminate all "marital" rights and privileges.

Which solution do YOU prefer?

[hotmamasito]

Sorry Mary you got it wrong. Anyone can get married and not belong to a religion.

Marriage licenses are given out every day, and do not have to be part of a religion.

Separation of church and state.

[antoniof123]

If it is a contract then how can you excluded anyone from a contract if both parties enter into them willingly?

[BellevueDad]

HILARIOUS that serial adulterer and religion jumper Newt, alongside his former mistress aspiring to be First Lady, should label anyone "radical". Newt's filthy sex life is constant fodder for the pundits.
He has no moral standing. Newt and Calista's affair make a mocker of holy matrimony.

[nearl451]

Imagine what elgible voter demographics would look like if minority voting rights and womens suffrage has been left to popular votes.

BTW, here is an honest question for Mitt or any other Mormons: What took so long in the Church for it to recognize and ordain blacks??

Some of these basic rights discussions can only be ruled on relative to protections of the minority from themajority in the guise of the Constitution. Both Romney and Gingrich should recognize that, but play dumb to milk the issue for political advantage.

[ManuelLittle]

Not true what this article says: 'The former House speaker, who has argued at length that the president should be able to rein in the judicial branch of the government' - Gingrich never said that. He nonetheless said Congress allied with the US President's administration can have Congress vote laws that can curtail the abuse of power of the Judicial branch of government (2 against one). That's the truth.

[Ricky-y]

Manuel, I don't know about "at length", but it's certainly true that Gingrich in the last month has said he wants to rein in the judicial branch. He said he would tell people in cabinet departments and agencies to ignore Supreme Court rulings and he would demand that the Justices appear before Congress to answer questions about some of their decisions. (As if that's something a president can demand.) He certainly doesn't believe in the separation of powers. And BTW he wants his mistress and home-wrecker, that is, a tramp, to be First Lady of the USA. That is, First Tramp. How embarrassing it would be when first ladies of other countries just don't show up at events, rather than shake her hand. Certainly Queen Elizabeth will never invite her to anything.

[sweetcakesmaria]

Everyone has equal rights under the Constitution which means that i can't vote to deny you the same rights that i enjoy. States should never put something on a ballot that will allow citizens to vote against someone else's constitutional rights. Personally i don't believe in same sex marriages but i do not believe that i have a right to dictate to others about their preferred life styles.