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.”

... 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.

Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples.

The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. The state Senate approved the measure last week. And Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the measure into law next week.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has sponsored gay rights bills in the House for several years, said that while he and his partner are grateful for the rights that exist under the state's current domestic partnership law, "domestic partnership is a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage."

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."

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Yesterday's ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was truly astonishing: Proposition 8—and by implication the marriage laws at the federal level and in 43 states—is unconstitutional.

Even while pretending their ruling was a “narrow” decision, these judges effectively decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people, invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians and declaring that they, the vaunted elite in black robes and cloaked with lifetime tenure, will decide what marriage means in California and the nation.

I don't know about you but my blood is boiling!

Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn't create?

If there is any good news, it's this: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the nation, and the author of the marriage opinion, Stephen Reinhardt, is the most overturned judge in the country. And even this court, the most liberal in the land, couldn't muster a unanimous ruling—the court was sharply split in a 2-1 ruling. It's almost as if even they couldn't deliver the ruling with a straight face.

We have to fight this outrageous ruling! Will you help us now?

Click here to make a secure, tax-deductible donation to the NOM Legal Defense Fund today!

America is supposed to be a nation where the rule of law prevails. Until this case yesterday, no federal appeals court had ever declared that marriage is unconstitutional. To justify its outrageous opinion, the Ninth Circuit had to totally ignore binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that state laws like Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the US Constitution.

The two judges who formed the majority opinion dismissed this precedent with a mere mention in a footnote because it inconveniences their radical judicial activism.

The judicial overlords on the Ninth Circuit have come to the amazing conclusion that once a court has imposed same-sex marriage on a state—as the California Supreme Court did in 2008 in a hotly-contested 4-3 ruling—the voters of that state are powerless to do anything about it. Maybe these activist judges think they are above the law, but we don't!

In America, the people are sovereign, not elitist federal judges with their Hollywood values and lifetime tenure. Nobody is above the law, and it's time we reminded them of that fact!

Marriage supporter, please help us take this case to the United States Supreme Court where we can defend marriage!

Let me be clear—I am upset about this decision, but it is not unexpected. In fact, I have been expecting this since the very first Prop 8 hearing in the San Francisco courtroom of Judge Vaughn Walker. From the very beginning, Walker's bias against Prop 8 was evident. Ruling after ruling went against us, despite the evidence and legal precedents. Three times the backers of Prop 8 had to appeal Walker's orders, once all the way to the US Supreme Court where they won a key reversal.

Make no mistake about it—yesterday's ruling will also be reversed by the Supreme Court. I believe that God will stand by those who stand by His design for marriage. We have to do our part to get the case to the Supreme Court, where we can win the ultimate victory to preserve Prop 8 and traditional marriage across the land.

Your donation is tax-deductible and will be kept confidential. Whether you can give $10,000, $1,000, $100 or $10, we need your help today! Every penny you give will go directly toward the Prop 8 legal expenses.

Will you help us?

Click here to make your most generous tax-deductible gift in defense of marriage right now!

The legal costs of defending Proposition 8 exceed $10 million. NOM has contributed hundreds of thousands directly, and helped raise additional funds, but we must do more. It's going to cost several hundred thousand dollars just to ask the Supreme Court to take this case.

NOM is committed to raising $100,000 in the next week to support the defense of Proposition 8. But we can't do it without you. We're stretched incredibly thin with marriage fights in Congress and in numerous states—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington state. It's almost overwhelming.

But we must step up and make sure that the outstanding legal team fighting for Prop 8 and traditional marriage across the country have the resources to win the battle. We are counting on you to help us help preserve marriage as God Himself designed it—the union of one man and one woman.

Together, we will prevail. Please help us right now.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

P.S. Please do not delay. We need the funds right away to fund an immediate appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We have 7 days to raise as much money as we can. WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT! But only if you stand with us.

Please stand by us in this fight by making an urgent, online, tax-deductible gift to the NOM Legal Defense Fund today.

...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.

2. For Reinhardt, “‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.” (P. 37.) The right to marry that the state supreme court conferred on same-sex couples “symbolize[d] state legitimization and social recognition of their committed relationships.” (P. 5.)

Notice what’s missing from Reinhardt’s description? Any recognition that the very institution of marriage arose and exists in order to encourage responsible procreation and childrearing.

... 5. If one accepts Reinhardt’s reasoning that dismisses the core rationales for traditional marriage, I don’t see how traditional marriage laws could survive anywhere. In other words, the sweep of Reinhardt’s reasoning is far broader than his purportedly narrow holding.

6. Former judge Vaughn Walker’s purported factual findings play virtually no role in Reinhardt’s ruling. That’s further evidence that Walker’s whole trial was a pointless (and time-consuming) farce.

Defenders of marriage in California will appeal Tuesday’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that upheld a district judge’s decision against the state’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The ProtectMarriage.com legal defense team, including Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, expressed no surprise that the lawsuit over the amendment, which protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, would progress beyond the three-judge 9th Circuit panel as has been long predicted by parties on both sides.

... “No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.”

“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage--tried in San Francisco--turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” Raum added. “Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.”

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

That was so last decade.

Please visit www.NationforMarriage.org/Prop8 to find out how you can stand up for marriage in California, as Prop heads to the Supreme Court.