GOP Presidential Hopefuls React to Prop 8 Ruling


And they ain’t happy.

Former senator Rick Santorum, fresh from Tuesday night’s sweeping caucus victories, took to Twitter to voice his displeasure regarding the 9th Circuit upholding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. He wanted his social media followers to know that under a Santorum presidency he wouldn’t be letting activist judges follow the Constitution make such decisions:

Rick Santorum Tweet

Just to clarify: the ruling makes it clear that under the 14th Amendment the people of California, acting as lawmakers, didn’t have the right to bar gay couples from the term marriage and all its social and cultural significance for the sole purpose of effectively enshrining that same-sex unions are less than heterosexual ones. The opinion, grounded in established law, was extensive on that point. There was even a Frank Sinatra reference.

Moving on. The oft-married former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slammed the decision as being an example of “judicial supremacy” (a really dull addition to the Bourne series), and vowed he would end this problem were he to be elected Divorcer-in-Chief:

Newt Gingrich Gay Marriage

The big surprise of the night came from Mitt Romney however. He didn’t tweet but went so far as to release a statement — because he’s really, really, really serious about the marriage issue. FYI evangelicals: he’s so not into gay marriage and would totally just elect judges who agree with him. Says Romney (emphasis added for snark):

“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.”

Ah, that awkward moment when you completely undercut the point you were trying to make.

As to former congressman Ron Paul — so far, no comment.

I did check former candidate Rick Perry’s feed, Rep. Michele Bachmann’s social media, and Herman Cain’s press, because who could resist? Sadly, now that they’re not running for President they just don’t seem to care enough to put out a statement about gays and their so-called threat to traditional marriage.

Related Stories:

9th Circuit Rules Prop 8 Trial Tapes to Stay Sealed

California Supreme Court Hears Prop. 8 Standing Issue

Santorum: Gay Partnerships Don’t Benefit Society

Image via wikimedia commons.


Patrick F.
Patrick f.4 years ago

Jon K. You seem to love to spew your self-righteous views but what SOLUTIONS do you offer? Remember that no matter how much you look down on others, there is always someone else looking down on you and YOUR lifestyle.

Jon K.
Jon K.4 years ago

I'm amazed that you needed to read my profile, probably looking for some ammunition to use against me. Seems like that's all you could come up with.

Anne Cole
.4 years ago

Jon K, I was kind of amazed to see that you were only 27. Usually it's the pre-senile older, paronoid men who talk like you do. The uncle no one talks to at Thanksgiving, etc.

Perhaps vitamins?

Jon K.
Jon K.4 years ago

Patrick F.

I almost forgot that I wanted to re-state this: they don't need a "probable cause," it's not a search or seizure, it's a "Term of Employment," just like any other company has their own Terms of Employment, which they can make whatever they want. It is also not discrimination, because the drugs are illegal. Most companies already have a "no drug" policy and can enforce testing at any time without the need for any reason.

Jon K.
Jon K.4 years ago

Anne C. It will not become the primary language, and this country will not ruled by Islam. Spanish are not going to take over, and neither are muslims. Keep dreaming your delusions, this is the US and will stay the US of AMERICA! Not US of Arabia, US of Mexico, US of Spain, or US of anything else.

As for me being arrogant, I haven't been speaking about myself, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Patrick F. I don't really care about getting people clean, they can do that on their own. If they want to get high they should do that on someone else's dime, not mine. I don't pay taxes so that welfare recipients can get high, and they have the choice to start doing drugs or not, it's not something that you need to do to live; but they chose to do it anyway. If they are poor, maybe they shouldn't be doing drugs, abusing the money that was set aside for other things like rent and food. This money is set aside for people who need it, NOT drug abusers, just like the grant money for schools isn't set aside so you can buy yourself a big screen TV. So is if anyone wants to do drugs, do it, just do it with your own money, I'm not here to support your drug habit.

Now if anyone wants to commit crimes to pay for drugs, then I would have no problem with the police putting them down. We don't need drug abusers, and we need drug abusers who will commit crimes and harm people even less. Crimes have consequence, and if they're willing to go that far, then they should feel those c

Anne Cole
.4 years ago

Jon K, you better learn Spanish, because in 15-20 years, it will be the primary language.

You do come off as a tad arrogant.

Patrick F.
Patrick f.4 years ago

Jon K. There is a big difference between "probable cause" and assuming that a welfare applicant will abuse the system to buy drugs. If you think about what mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants(and subsequent denial of welfare) will actually bring about, it will NOT be a cleaner group of welfare recipients, it will be an increase of homeless people(desperate drug abusers) which will also produce an increase in crime. If there is is a mandatory testing AND programs to help these people get off the drugs, you just might see the problem getting under control.

As far as testing government employees(same conditions) and politicians(unconditional), I am all for it.

James Campbell
James Campbell4 years ago

Tina C. “man and a woman”

Sorry, you’ve got me there, can you please define what exactly is a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’?
Are you talking here of sex or gender or something else?

Can I take your silence as a ‘don’t know’?

Dent H.
Dent H.4 years ago

I don’t believe I have never seen this many assholes in one place before. I really stinks here! So many of you are here only to battle each other with things that serve no cause other than to bolster your egos. Oh yea, you all are so much smarter than the other guy. Boy you sure set them straight. Where is my score card? When you all get tired of the name calling and total disregard for anyone's else’s rights maybe you will realize this is why nothing gets accomplished but creating more jerk-offs fighting over nothing important.

The partisan battles are no different than this pathetic nonsense and look at all the nothing getting done there too. Your hypocrisy stands out like a full moon on a clear night. There is little else one can see. Every person who reads this diatribe can see exactly what you all stand for in this world. You all fool no one but your self. No one comes out on top and no one wins. It is so important for you people to hurt each other there is nothing else but this constant bickering on every article posted with nothing being said that is new.

I can't believe anyone would stoop to this and pretend to care about America and it's people. You obviously care for your selves and nothing else. Damn, now I am doing the same crap. Oh well, some one needed to say something. Now I will go and kick my own ass for being such a jerk too. Oh, now you all can attack me for a while and leave each other alone.

Arild Warud
Arild Warud4 years ago

What are they afraid of???