What Presidential Candidates Think About the Gay Marriage Decision

From Conservative Refocus:

Most Americans want to elect a President who will represent them on the issues.

The High Court’s activist decision on gay marriage has created a firestorm of criticism  from those who believe in traditional Judeo-Christian values, while many presidential candidates seem to actively support the court’s decision, in spite of those values.

So, the following is what each presidential candidate had to say, in short,  on the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.

Each candidate’s name’s have been color-coded to reference either Red for Republican or Blue for Democrat, and/or a mixture for those who exhibit qualities synonymous with both….

….

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: “the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “Today the Supreme Court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building: ‘Equal justice under law.’”

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley: Oversaw the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland, and shared gratitude to Marylanders for “leading the way on this important issue.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: The country “must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat,”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal: “The decision “will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”

Lincoln Chafee: tweeted congratulations to the Supreme Court on “today’s good ruling for marriage equality!” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — issued strong statements urging conservatives to fight

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz:  “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history. This radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state, it has no connection to the United States Constitution,”

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham: Stated he would respect the court’s decision and that instead of pursuing “a divisive effort” to overturn the ruling with Congress “that would be doomed to fail,” he would commit himself to “ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans.”

Rick Santorum: “Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people’s opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate,”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: “America’s founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench.”

Ben Carson: “I did not agree with the decision, but it is “now the law of the land, Congress needs to protect religious beliefs.” “I support same-sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.”

Sen. Marco Rubio: “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.”

Jeb Bush: “The Supreme Court should have left marriage up to the states, Americans should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.”

Carly Fiorina : The decision should have been left up to the states, the ruling is “only the latest example of an activist Court.” “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”

Donald Trump: Another example of “the Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts” letting “us down.” “Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!”

 Hillary Clinton: “This morning, love triumphed in the highest court in our land.”  “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law and the Constitution grants them that right.”

Sen.  Rand Paul:  no statement yet

~~~~~~~~~

Personally, I think Franklin Graham made the best statement, but that’s just one person’s opinion.

Franklin-Graham1

That first paragraph says it all as far as the SCOTUS’ position on this. They don’t get to redefine this and they should have tossed this out and never heard the case.

As we would expect, the candidates are all over the place with their opinions on this decision, and the talk about this will drone on for months until many people are dulled into acceptance.

We could be witnessing the beginning of a new civil rights movement that will encompass constitutionalists, Christians and all people of faith. I hardly think this is what the Left envisioned, but it is certainly what they will get. And it won’t be rainbows and lollipops.

~Kathy

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to What Presidential Candidates Think About the Gay Marriage Decision

  1. Uriel says:

    I agree But had someone early on taken on the subject of legal federal certificate issued by federal offices as marriage between gays I believe this all would have been avoided. Religious marriage has never been about registration to a state. Legal issues of partners was the issue gays put forth. So legal federal acknowledgment for all documents would have solved the issue quietly without forcing religions to be involved. Therefore like stirring the racial cauldron, this was more about eliminating the foundations of the constitution not a given issue.

  2. Hardnox says:

    Nice list.

    Too late.

    The governors in 35 states could have prevented any of this. Now we’ll be inundated with homo this and homo that forever.

    • Kathy says:

      The original screw up in this mess is the way we select the supremes. That should have been changed a long time ago, but it, like term limits for Congress will never happen.

      Some of the governors created laws in their own states but they did nothing as a united front – that was the next mistake, and now they’ve been overridden.

      • Hardnox says:

        Agreed. The last fellow who attempted to have a Supreme impeached for not following the letter of the constitution was Thomas Jefferson over 200 years ago… and he lost. No one has tried it since.

        Benjamin Franklin was right “we stand united or we will most hang separately”. The problem we have today is that most every politician panders to the media and ratings.

  3. Garnet92 says:

    I’m afraid that the court has just opened Pandora’s Box and the consequences (some intended, some unintended) will trample on many of our previously established activities.

    Like many others, I don’t believe that the court had any business taking up the issue at all – but, after they did make this boneheaded decision, it will affect many other aspects of life in America – to our determent. I think that the court, in its current makeup, is likely to continue to decide more issues in the same manner – that it, to ALLOW things that the states had previously prevented. I think that they’re afraid of backlash by the left/progressives and will tend towards acquiescence on any new issues.

    • Kathy says:

      I agree with your assessment of how future matters will be decided. Like I said in another post – they currently have the attitude of ‘how can we make this happen’ instead of ‘what does the Constitution say about this.

  4. Clyde says:

    So much for that. Looks like Bush was as usual trying to be on both sides. As bad as left picks are, with FEW exceptions, RIGHT picks haven’t worked out so well, either.

    • Kathy says:

      You’d think as long as Bush has been on that fence, he’s bound to be near split in half straight up the middle by now. Hopefully, we can cull out the slackers and come out of this with at least one good guy. Our country sorely needs it right now.