RED MEAT!!! Reaction From Republicans On SCOTUS Ruling

Let’s throw some red meat into the arena.  In case you’ve been hiding under a rock, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional earlier today.  Here are a few responses from our Republican officials without comment:

From Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens:

“Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held 5-4 that Congress violated equal protection when it defined marriage for federal purposes differently from the way the State of New York defined it. I disagree with the Court’s decision. But it is important to understand what the decision does and does not mean.

Today’s decision rests on the basic assumption – with which I strongly agree – that the power to define marriage is a power traditionally reserved to the States. The decision does not affect existing state definitions of marriage; in fact, it explicitly says that it is limited to marriages recognized by states as lawful. I agree with the Chief Justice that this limitation means what it says. The definition of marriage adopted by Georgia’s voters is unaffected by today’s decision.”

From Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA-01):

Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Courts’ ruling today on the Defense of Marriage Act:

“Today’s ruling is a disappointment to those of us who believe in the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is also of great concern to those of us who believe in the traditional role of the court. The more the judicial branch creeps into an activist role, the more it defies the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives and President.

“The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. By overturning it without cause, the Court today stepped beyond the constitutional limits to its power.”

The Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) was passed by the U.S. House on July 12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 and the U.S. Senate on September 10 of that year by a vote of 85-14. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

From Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA-03):

The Supreme Court issued two controversial rulings today on cases pertaining to gay marriage.  InWindsor v. United States, the Court held that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment.  The case was brought by Edith Windsor, a New York resident who was legally married in Canada.  She filed suit against the federal government when she was forced to pay estate taxes on the inheritance she received from her deceased partner.

“First, I want to reassure you that this has no direct impact on the state of Georgia,” stated Westmoreland.  “Our state ban against gay marriage still stands.  Unfortunately, the Court’s ruling today is yet another example of judicial activism run amuck.  The Defense of Marriage Act was passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.  It has been the law of the land since 1996.  We need a uniform federal policy regarding marriage across the country and since the vast majority of states do not recognize gay marriage, it only makes sense for the federal government to respect that.  The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a sacred union under God.  This ruling is a major blow for the American family and for the sanctity of marriage.”

The Supreme Court also held that the outside group defending California’s Proposition 8, or Prop 8, did not have standing to defend the law.  Prop 8 was a ballot initiative passed in California that outlawed same-sex marriage.  The law was challenged in court and was struck down.  State officials declined to bring an appeal, so proponents of the ballot measure tried to carry the appeal on their own.  The Supreme Court ruled this outside group does not have standing to defend the law if the state declines to defend it.  By not ruling on the merits of the case, the Court’s decision today effectively reinstates the ban on Prop 8 – allowing same-sex couples to get married in the state of California.  Like the Windsor decision, this does not impact Georgia – just California.

“I’m not pleased the Court decided to punt on this issue, but the core problem here is that officials in the State of California have refused to enforce a law that was voted on by the people of California,” stated Westmoreland.  “The people of California voted to ban gay marriage, and state officials should enforce the law of the land – the will of the people – even if they don’t personally agree with it.  What we have seen in California is liberal elitists who run the state’s government forcing their opinion and their values on the people.  It’s disgraceful.”

State Representative Ed Lindsey (R-HD54 — Running for GA-11):

“In a statement today regarding the US Supreme Court decision on the DOMA legislation that my friend Bob Barr passed when he was in Congress years ago and then later repudiated, Bob said “if it (traditional marriage) were on the ballot in Georgia today, I’d vote that way.”

“Bob must have been so busy working for the ACLU that he missed that protecting traditional marriage was on the ballot in Georgia in 2004.  In fact, I campaigned to pass that constitutional amendment while running for the State House that year.

“Given Bob’s gymnastic changes in his position on DOMA over the years, we do not know what his position was on traditional marriage in 2004, but I campaigned for it then and I will stay the course for my constituents now.”

Georgia Republican Party Chairman John Padgett:

In response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, Georgia Republican Party Chairman John Padgett issued the following statements:

“The Georgia Republican Party is one of inclusion, tolerance, and respect.  But we are also a Party of principle and purpose.   While disappointed in today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the Georgia Republican Party will not back down in our efforts to promote, protect, and preserve traditional marriage for future generations.

“Marriage is a sacred institution created by God, not by the federal government, and we wholeheartedly believe that it is worth fighting for!”


  1. Lea Thrace says:

    Without weighing in on how I feel about one or the other, I would just like to say the following:

    Isn’t it interesting that some of the same people who agreed with the decision yesterday re: the VRA (which was passed and recertified with bipartisan majorities IIRC) are now claiming judicial activism because the court struck down DOMA which was also passed with bipartisan majorities.

    • saltycracker says:

      Might you feel disagreed yesterday but saw justice today ?
      If they approve polygamy in Utah how will that shake out ? 🙂
      In such a transient country this will get complex and the bible belt probably will stand firm on their definition.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I think part of the problem is that everyone awaits SC rulings like messages from the gods, that we tend to forget, they are not gods but people all the same.

    • Painterman says:

      FYI – For the record. He actually got 7 of them, but Colbert did an edit job on him to make it look like only 3. The Congressman isn’t proud that he froze up and couldn’t remember all of them but is a bit miffed that they punked him that way.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        Westmoreland gets credit for doing the interview.

        Didn’t know about the editing. Did Colbert take liberties with Westmoreland’s response to Colbert’s question about what better place to hang the 10 commandments than the Capitol?

        • Scott65 says:

          Seems they always forget the one about “thy shall not bear false witness”. They break that one on a regular and routine basis

    • pettifogger says:

      Liberals always overstate their mandate, Republicans always overplay their scandals.

      The right presently has at least a tie or slight control of SCOTUS, a majority in the house, a majority of governors and a majority of state legislatures. There is a fair possibility the GOP will retake the Senate next year.

      People have short memories. You can pick off all the social issues you want, but remember that when the GOP drops their opposition because the issue is now moot, you’ve lost an agenda piece.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        That’s only if they drop the issue.

        But yeah, people on both sides are kidding themselves if they think they want this issue to be settled once and for all. If you’re gonna stir the pot come campaign time you need something to stir it with.

      • Scott65 says:

        They all wont live forever…

        Antonin Scalia 3/11/1936
        Age: 77 yr 3 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986
        Served: 26 yr 9 mo

        Anthony Kennedy 7/23/1936
        Age: 76 yr 11 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988
        Served: 25 yr 4 mo

        Clarence Thomas 6/23/1948
        Age: 65 yr 0 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991
        Served: 21 yr 8 mo

        Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3/15/1933
        Age: 80 yr 3 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993
        Served: 19 yr 10 mo

        Stephen Breyer 8/15/1938
        Age: 74 yr 10 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994
        Served: 18 yr 10 mo

        John G. Roberts 1/27/1955
        Age: 58 yr 5 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005
        Served: 7 yr 8 mo

        Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 4/1/1950
        Age: 63 yr 2 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006
        Served: 7 yr 4 mo

        Sonia Sotomayor 6/25/1954
        Age: 59 yr 0 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009
        Served: 3 yr 10 mo

        Elena Kagan 4/28/1960
        Age: 53 yr 2 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010
        Served: 2 yr 10 mo

  2. troutbum70 says:

    Kim Kardashian has done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than any gay couple ever will. Yeah, I’m a Republican and Southern Baptist to boot.

  3. Samuel says:

    Lynn Westmoreland is a hypocrite! Today, the SCOTUS ran “amuck in judicial activism” in overturning 1996’s DOMA, yet, only yesterday Mr. Westmoreland was loving the same SCOTUS that gutted and basically overturned the 1965 VRA law that was overwhelmingly passed/renewed by Congress in 2007.

    Lynn still clings to the Bible and the 10 Commandments; yet, I’ll bet he still doesn’t remeber more than the first three.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      The Court has been generally minimalist in its rulings. These rulings return the matter to the states to further work out, exactly what conservatives have said should have happened instead of Roe.

      Marriage has been a state matter. Conservatives advocating for less federal / central government may not like the results in this case. It goes to show that with many conservatives ultimately issue principles trump governing principles.

      The bubble definition:
      judicial activism, n.
      (1) any Court ruling GOP conservatives object to.

    • pettifogger says:

      Whether Congress passed it has little to do with whether it is Constitutional. SCOTUS warned Congress they needed to act to keep Sec. 4, and Congress didn’t.

      I don’t know if DOMA was judicial activism, but it was a blustering, stupid opinion by Kennedy that reminds me of the “penumbra” reasoning that gave us three terrible decisions in Griswold, Roe and Casey.

  4. Dave Bearse says:

    The silver lining for Conservatives is that Issa’s attempted manufacture of an Obama IRS scandal can largely go away unnoticed for everyone but the Tea Party fringe.

    A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”

    The inspector general’s audit found that groups seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “patriots” in their name did receive extra attention from the IRS, with some facing years of delay and inappropriate questions from the agency.

    But top congressional Democrats have wielded new information from the IRS this week that liberal groups were also flagged for extra attention on the sorts of “be on the lookout” lists (BOLOs) that also tripped up conservative groups.

      • Rick Day says:

        Show me one Tea Party group that deserves not for profit tax breaks. Talk about your double standards, where is the Free Market when you need it?

        • I support their not for profit tax breaks – as a c4. (Note that the not for profit tax break doesn’t allow for income tax deductions by those making contributions.) The money has already been taxed once… why tax it again? It’s simply being collected into a pool to spend on advocacy for a variety of issues. There’s no “profit” there.

          But that difference brings up a point I was reading about elsewhere recently. Should contributions to churches be tax deductible (as they are with a C3), or should a church also be a C4? Or should perhaps there be two filings – one as a C3, one as a C4 – and perhaps have contributions towards charitable actions by the church be a tax deduction, but contributions towards the general operations of the church be considered under the standard definitions of the C4? Just some food for thought.

          (However, were we to opt for a consumption tax instead of an income tax, none of this would matter anyways…)

          • Dave Bearse says:

            Church contributions wholly benefitting those making the contribution not tax deductible to the contributor? Suits me, but I recommend you have the comment yanked if you’ve yet an interest in public office in Georgia.

            • One of the opinions I read on it was from Rev. Mike Huckabee. I don’t see any problems with my comments. It’s a difficult conversation that perhaps needs to be had. (And if I run for PSC again (as a Republican this time) in 5 years or whatever, it’s not like a body that regulates utilities has anything whatsoever to do with those policies / laws anyways.)

              “I must be very honest and tell you; I have never given a dime to God that I gave solely because it was a tax decision,” Huckabee said. “And if you’ve got people in your church who are giving because it’s a tax decision, then they ought to keep their money. They need it more than God does.”


  5. achap39 says:

    The notion and idea of ‘marriage’ started out as nothing more than a business transaction. It was religion that made into a spiritual act/sacrament, and a government that made it a legal act by providing benefits/tax breaks.

    By proxy, the ‘traditional definition’ of marriage is one that was brought on by religion. Seeing as the United States is not a theocracy (despite some wishing we were), it does not matter what ‘the Bible’ says.

    Sorry, Rep. Westmoreland. You and others obviously prefer to have civil rights and equal protection defined by Biblical standards, and not the Constitution YOU took an oath to uphold.

  6. Rick Day says:

    I would think this would be a day of celebration for the GOP. What I see happening is that the gays will abandon politics since their ‘pet issue’ is pretty much solved. The rest of inequality will be smoothed over by sheer momentum of time and common sense.

    So the Dems just potentially lost 10% of their funding and ‘heels on the ground’ pardon the pun.

    You got Section 4 of the VRA tossed; a tossed bone for the South to gnaw. Quit being so damn greedy and take what you can get.

    • Rick Day says:

      Also, I’d be willing to bet that if we left those Ay-rabs alone, they would go home and stay home too.

      So…what is the next demonized segment of society does the GOP have in mind now that blacks, browns and gays are no longer profitable? Oh wait..the Ay-rabs!

      I’m going to run out and start an NSA data mining company out of my bedroom today!

  7. saltycracker says:

    Obama flying off to Africa and doing missionary work on gay marriage was bad advice and not in any of his father’s dreams. How much foreign aid is that going to cost us ?

  8. Doug Deal says:

    Why do we care so much about who can marry whom, and why do we care so much about who cannot marry whom when pretty much everything else is a wreck?

    People are good at working themselves up into a lather over this and other issues that mean little in the long term but calmly ignore the slow steady removal of our rights and protections from tyranny, the growth of strangulating debt that will destroy the prosperity of generations to come and the absolute ruin of health care that will cause the suffering of humanity to expand exponentially.

    Why do we give lip service about freedom every July 4 when everyone seems happy and willing to be a serf to our masters at the Federal government or when people desire to control those that want to live their lives differently?

    Since it is safety that is the clarion call that is taking our freedoms, I have to scoff at both “the land of the free” and “the home of the brave.”

    • saltycracker says:

      Why care ? Because we created a class of those with “inherent” spousal government benefits and are now redefining it to increase the beneficiaries ?
      It can be fixed by governments treating all as individuals.

Comments are closed.