Republican presidential candidates are very upset that gays can now marry
Most of the Republican candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election have condemned the Supreme Court for its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
The US Supreme Court has today announced that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right – paving the way for weddings in all 50 states.
The highest court in the US made the decision after hearing ‘mega-case’ Obergefell v. Hodges.
“Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people’s turn to speak
“The Court is 1 of 3 coequal branches of government & they have an imperfect record. Stakes are too high to cede marriage to unelected judges.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.
“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many.
“The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.
“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.
“I also believe that we should love our neighbour and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
“The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
“This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.
“The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.
“I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me.”
“This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be. Justice Alito spoke for so many of us when he said that ‘[t]oday’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage…
“All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.’
“The Court ruled today that all Americans should receive equal benefits and rights from the government under the law. I have always supported this view. However, this decision was also about the definition of marriage itself.
“I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country.
“Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today’s decision.
“The Court did not and could not end this debate today. Let us continue to show tolerance for those whose opinions and sincerely held beliefs differ from our own. We must lead by example, finding a way to respect one another and to celebrate a culture that protects religious freedom while promoting equality under the law.”
“I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws.
“However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court’s decision.”
“Rather than pursing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans. No person of faith should ever be forced by the federal government to take action that goes against his or her conscience or the tenets of their religion.
“As President, I would staunchly defend religious liberty in this nation and would devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights. While we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people.”
“I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment.
“Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.”
“While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.
“I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.”
“I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.”
“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law.
“As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.”
“Today’s decision in King v. Burwell is judicial activism, plain and simple. For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected judges has rewritten the text of Obamacare in order to impose this failed law on millions of Americans. The first time, the Court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory ‘penalty’ into a ‘tax.’ Today, these robed Houdinis transmogrified a ‘federal exchange’ into an exchange ‘established by the State.’
“As Justice Scalia rightfully put it, ‘Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.” He also said, ‘We should start calling this law SCOTUSCare’ – I agree.
“If this were a bankruptcy case, or any other case of ordinary statutory interpretation, the result would have been 9-0, with the Court unanimously reversing the Obama administration’s illegal actions. But instead, politics intervened.
“For nakedly political reasons, the Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome. These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions of Americans. Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not of men, and this transparent distortion is disgraceful.”
Statements will be added as they come in.
More: ben carson, Carly Fiorina, civil partnership, civil union, Donald Trump, equal marriage, Gay, gay weddings, George Pataki, jeb bush, lesbian, lesbian wedding, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, marriage, marriage equality, mike huckabee, rand paul, rick perry, Rick Santorum, same sex weddings, Ted Cruz, Union, wedding