Liberals sometimes feel that it is narrow-minded to favor traditional marriage. Over time, my reporting on poverty has led me to disagree: Solid marriages have a huge beneficial impact on the lives of the poor (more so than in the lives of the middle class, who have more cushion when things go wrong).

One study of low-income delinquent young men in Boston found that one of the factors that had the greatest impact in turning them away from crime was marrying women they cared about. As Steven Pinker notes in his recent book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”: “The idea that young men are civilized by women and marriage may seem as corny as Kansas in August, but it has become a commonplace of modern criminology.” -- The New York Times

Mitt Romney made the following statement regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Proposition 8 as 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.”

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich ripped into a panel of federal judges that decided on Tuesday in a 2-1 decision on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Proposition 8 -- a measure approved by California votes to recognize only traditional marriage in the Golden State -- was unconstitutional.

“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 in a statement released on Tuesday. “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,” Gingrich continued. “Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage."

Gingrich went on to compare the decision to the Dred Scott decision and to Roe v. Wade.

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum made the following statement in response to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on Proposition 8 - the 2008 ballot initiative codifying the traditional definition of marriage as one-man and one-woman.

Rick Santorum said: "Today's decision by the 9th Circuit is another in a long line of radical activist rulings by this rogue circuit - and it is precisely why I have called for that circuit to be abolished and split up. Marriage is defined and has always been defined as 'one man and one woman.' We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage.

The people of California spoke clearly at the ballot box that they wanted marriage defined in the traditional manner of one man and one woman. And for a court, any court, to usurp the power and will of the people in this manner on an issue this fundamental to the foundation of our society is wrong.

We need to have a Judicial Branch that acts within its Constitutional bounds. We need to have a President that is willing to stand up to the Judiciary. We need to have a President who will fight to protect marriage once and for all with a federal marriage amendment. I am committed to being that President."

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, joins the bishops of California in denouncing the February 7 decision of a federal court rejecting the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a voter-approvedinitiative in California that recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Today’s court ruling is a grave injustice, ignoring the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “The Constitution of the United States most assuredly does not forbid the protection of the perennial meaning of marriage, one of the cornerstones of society. The people of California deserve better. Our nation deserves better. Marriage deserves better.”

...“Our society does not operate in an amoral or value-less vacuum,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. “To flourish, it must be infused with moral direction that is grounded in the truth. Of course, the true meaning of marriage, like the gift of human life, is ultimately not subject to a vote or court ruling. But in California, as in every other state where marriage has been put to a vote, the people justly upheld the truth of marriage. How tragic for California, for the nation, and especially for children, that this correctly-informed judgment has now been set aside.”

Marriage, we have just learned, is a major cause of the growing great divide among American upper and lower classes.

Last week, in advance of National Marriage Week USA (Feb. 7-14), I took note of fresh news about marriage that should make every American stand up in alert attention.

In mid-January, the Pew Research Center told us 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married in 1960; but today just 51% are—a record low.

... Research is overwhelming on the fact that this disadvantages children on an enormous scale—think increased teen pregnancies, increased prison populations, and children who grow up with no modeling for how to attain healthy marriage in the next generation.

So what can be done? New York Times columnist David Brooks, who cites “Coming Apart” as probably the most important book of the year, calls for a two-year mandatory national service program to teach responsible behaviors. (Murray cites a loss of the four core American values—marriage, honesty, industrious, and religion—as all contributing to the growing economic woes of the working class.)

Brad Wilcox, head of the National Marriage Project, calls for creators of film and television to promote the values by which the elite live, but because they are stuck in the grips of nonjudgmentalism, do not promote the values of marriage, hard work, obeying the law, and faith as the path to human flourishing.

In these economically challenging times, we must commit ourselves to lowering the high cost of retreat from marriage.

... This is why caring leaders are creating a new national observance designed to strengthen and support marriages, called National Marriage Week USA to be observed from February 7 to 14 each year.

If you are fortunate enough to be in a marriage, I encourage you to take care of it.

Whether you are married or not, Americans should be supportive of promoting marriage prior to childbearing and the strengthening of marriage at all socio-economic levels.

Nothing short of the future of our country, and our way of life, depends on it.

Adults nationwide overwhelmingly believe that it is important for children to grow up in a home with both parents and feel those children have an advantage over those who grow up in a single-parent home.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 95% say it is at least somewhat important for children to grow up in a home with both parents. This finding includes 73% who see this as Very Important.

Americans believe overwhelmingly in the importance of marriage, and a sizable number continue to feel it’s too easy to get a divorce in this country.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of American Adults rate the institution of marriage as at least somewhat important to U.S. society, and that includes 60% who consider it Very Important. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 17% don’t believe marriage is a very important institution, with three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Important.

... This ruling [by the 9th Circuit] effectively says that any attempt by the people of California to check their state courts’ liberal activism violates the United States Constitution. That proposition is not only legally laughable but is constitutionally backwards and may be the most serious attack on self government since the era of poll taxes and literacy tests. They have not only disenfranchised those who are poor or Black, they have effectively disenfranchised an entire state’s citizenry.

Here’s how the one-way ratchet works in today’s opinion. Once a state has changed its law to allow same-sex marriage, then changing the law back becomes a “distinct constitutional violation” by “strip[ping] same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationship recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them.” For the Ninth Circuit it didn’t matter whether same-sex marriage was the law in California for an hour, a day, or a year. It didn’t matter whether it was legalized via judicial fiat rather than legislatively or by a referendum of the people. It didn’t matter that the California Supreme Court acknowledged that the right itself was novel. Once there, it never can be eliminated. Not by the California Supreme Court reconsidering its own discovery of the right. Certainly not by the California legislature. And now not even by the people amending their own state constitution.

... In the bizarro world of the Ninth Circuit, marriage is at once nothing and everything. The unelected California Supreme Court can singlehandedly invent new constitutional rights, but the people cannot use the proper amendment procedures to amend that same constitution to restore its original meaning.

He says the question here is "The right of the people to decide for themselves a very fundamental policy question about whether we're going to continue to have an institution of marriage that is rooted in biology with a purpose of procreation as it always has been or whether we're going to allow the courts to mandate a dramatic altercation of that institution with potentially devastating consequences to society. So it's the right of the voters of the state of California to have their judgement about the basic policy in question here affirmed."

...The Ninth Circuit did not decide that all opposite-sex-only marriage recognition rules are unconstitutional. Rather, it concluded that when a state has already recognized same-sex civil unions that are functionally equivalent or nearly equivalent to marriage, denying the symbolic recognition provided by the label “marriage” is no longer rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court did not decide whether the general constitutional right to marry that applies to same-sex couples, or whether opposite-sex-only recognition rules are generally unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on sexual orientation requires “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” and fails that scrutiny. It only applied the rational basis test, and held that the regime of civil unions but not same-sex marriage lacks a rational basis.

Note that, if the decision is upheld, this means that the arguments that civil unions are a “slippery slope” to same-sex marriage were absolutely right: The recognition of civil unions changed the legal landscape in a way that made it more likely for courts to also conclude that same-sex marriage must be recognized, too.

Perhaps the next time pro-marriage advocates point out a slippery slope, it will be taken more seriously.

...No one should be surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage, which was tried in San Francisco, turned out this way. But as the primary legal defenders of California’s marriage amendment, we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will ultimately be upheld. To that end, every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court — where, we are confident, the American people’s definition of marriage will be upheld. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

This is only one battle. The good news is that those who wish to see marriage protected are still winning the war across the nation. Society should protect and strengthen marriage between husband and wife because marriage protects and strengthens children, families, and society.

Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney denounced today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco striking down California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

Mr. Gingrich tweeted, “Court of Appeals overturning CA’s Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let’s end judicial supremacy.”

Mr. Romney’s view was almost identical. “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” he said in a statement. “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.”

Rick Santorum tweeted and wrote this on his campaign Facebook page:

Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking down Proposition 8. These judges inserted a right into our Constitution that isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The radical actions of the 9th Circuit underscore the need for a constitutional amendment which would define ‘marriage’ as between one man-one woman. Study after study shows that traditional marriage, as it has always been defined – one man and one woman – creates the best possible environment for our children. And strong families are a key part of a strong America.

This issue is far too important to allow for 50 different definitions of marriage at the state level. And this issue should certainly not be decided by a few activist judges. As your president, I will fight for traditional marriage.

A majority of New Jersey voters agree with Gov. Chris Christie’s call to put gay marriage on the ballot, according to a poll released this morning.

The Kean University/NJ Speaks poll of 1,000 likely voters found 57 percent support a public referendum on whether to allow same-sex couples to get married, while 32 percent oppose it.

... Democratic members of the Assembly are meeting this afternoon to discuss gay marriage, which has already cleared the Assembly and Senate judiciary committees. Senate President Stephen Sweeney says he has at least the 21 votes needed to pass it in the upper house and has scheduled it for a vote a week from today. Supporters are still trying to line up the 41 votes needed to pass the lower house.

A press release from the congressman's office:

Tonight, Congressman Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) will lead a special order on the floor of the House of Representatives emphasizing the importance of strong marriages. The effort is part of National Marriage Week, which aims to encourage many diverse groups to strengthen individual marriages, reduce the divorce rate, and build a stronger marriage culture, which in turn helps curtail poverty and benefits children.

“I’m proud to participate in National Marriage Week because strong marriages are crucial to strong communities and it is important that government policies support marriage,” Nunnelee said.

Mariam Bell, Policy Advisor for National Marriage Week, said in a statement: "In Congressman Nunnelee we find a champion of the family who is a person of both insight and steadfast action. As we celebrate National Marriage Week, both the Congressman and his wife Tori are a living example of partners walking together through life's journey, working together for a better community and nation. They understand how thriving marriages nurture children and families, our hope for the future. For the Nunnelees, a marriage is not for themselves only, but is a blessing they earnestly seek for others both by example, encouragement and through thoughtful policy advocacy."