April 3rd, 2009
04:16 PM ET
8 years ago

Republicans weigh in on Iowa same-sex ruling

Michael Steele is one of several Republicans criticizing the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

Michael Steele is one of several Republicans criticizing the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

(CNN) - Republicans are sharply criticizing the Iowa Supreme Court ruling Friday that reverses the state's 11-year-old ban on same-sex marriage.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

"The Iowa Supreme Court's decision today to reverse an 11 year old state law outlawing same-sex marriage is sadly another example of judicial activism currently threatening family values in America. While I respect an individual's right to live his or her life as they see fit, decisions like this are better left in the hands of legislators and governors."

"I firmly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. A state's autonomous nature allows it to change its laws as the citizenry sees fit, but it should be done by the people, not through judicial decree."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:

"I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts."

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (via Twitter):

"Iowa Sup. Court dec. to allow same sex marriage is disappointing. All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not legislative judges ... must fight to preserve family and amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as one man and one woman."

South Carolina governor Mark Sanford:

Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Sanford, did not react to the Iowa ruling specifically, but said the governor is "against same-sex marriage." Sawyer pointed out that "South Carolina passed a same-sex marriage ban last year, and the governor was supportive of it."

Alaska governor Sarah Palin:

Bill McAllister, a spokesman for Palin, said that as of this morning, "we haven't discussed it." Palin has said she opposes defining marriage as anything but between a man and a woman.

Filed under: Michael Steele • Mitt Romney
soundoff (96 Responses)
  1. Jeff - Austin, TX

    Stay in your bedrooms and out of anyone elses bedroom.

    April 3, 2009 04:20 pm at 4:20 pm |
  2. boered1

    Poor poor poor members of the radical religious rightwing party. I am soooo sad for them, their atempts to hijack the Constitution and turn this country into a Theocracy have yet again been thwarted by those evil Contitutional judges doing thier part in the checks and balances of our government. Taking an illegal law approved by a Senate and throwing it into the trashbin of history. Mean old activist judges how dare they do their job!

    Three down 47 to go before all Americans can enjoy the same freedoms!

    April 3, 2009 04:21 pm at 4:21 pm |
  3. Frank in Wilton Manors

    if activist courts had us goose-stepping to church all day every day the Dumbpublicans would be cheering on that one, you betcha!

    April 3, 2009 04:21 pm at 4:21 pm |
  4. Mobius

    Wow. Despite the heavy loss of support, these morons STILL don't get it.

    April 3, 2009 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |
  5. heartlight3

    Just because Romney and Steele believe something doesn't mean it is right. If we are truly a country of equality, equality should apply to everyone. Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want. it is not the job of the government to tell people who they can or can't marry.

    April 3, 2009 04:23 pm at 4:23 pm |
  6. Independent chicago man age 25

    Wow, I bet the BGLFA will be pissed! don't ever expect to get their votes in 2010 or for that matter EVER!

    April 3, 2009 04:23 pm at 4:23 pm |
  7. 31% of Americans are TRAITORS for wanting America to FAIL and 69% of Americans to SUFFER!

    Mr. Steele if the courts did not uphold the rights of a minority, you sir, would still be in slavery!

    Just because the majority wants it does not make it either right or just and cannot be used to dominate a minority.

    The founding fathers envisioned this and that moron, is why there are THREE branches of government of EQUAL power.

    April 3, 2009 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  8. NICK

    Mr Romney┬┤s comments is a joke coming from a religion that condones multible wives for a man.. I wonder if one becomes rightous, before or after they become a Republican, especially since the party has so many members like Rush and Newt... Two great examples of "family values".

    April 3, 2009 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  9. KJL

    Why do they care? Old people marry young people. Skinny people marry fat people. Stupid people marry smart people. Americans marry foreigners. African-Americans marry whites. The list goes on. Why pick on some couples that look "different" together, and not others?

    If it's because of their religious beliefs, why aren't they up in arms about Jews marrying Catholics or Atheists marrying anybody? Maybe they should be looking for something more important to fuss over.

    April 3, 2009 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  10. Eric, Columbia, MO

    If all decisions of civil rights were left up to the public, the legislators, and governors, there would still be laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage, women's rights, voters' rights, ... ... ... . The list goes on. The purpose of the Judicial branch of government is to protect the rights of minorities in spite of the majority. Anyone who disagrees with this ruling should not be allowed to comment on it unless they have read the full 69 page discussion by the Justices. Don't waste time commenting here if you can't take the time to read and understand the ruling. Who knows, you might just learn something.

    April 3, 2009 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  11. Michael in Orlando

    Once again, the "less government" GOP party trying to legislate their own narrow view of morality. Let us all love and share relationships with any consenting adult, whatever the gender.

    April 3, 2009 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  12. Danny

    Unbelievable. These guys are so far stuck in the past.

    April 3, 2009 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  13. obama-mama

    This is the first time republicans made sense to me. I'm sure it will be the last.

    April 3, 2009 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  14. Evan

    Okay, let's make this simple.

    If the sanctity of marriage is so absolute, then outlaw divorce.

    As for that 'activist judges' nonsense - anyone who upholds the Constitution is an activist judge in the eyes of the Republicans. If that's the case, then we should ALL be activists since the Constitution is there to protect us from people like these so-called 'opponents' to gay marriage.

    This is America. Discrimination is ILLEGAL here.

    April 3, 2009 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  15. Shooky

    They are exactly right, LEFT TO THE PEOPLE! What is it to be American anymore if a activist judges usurp the will of the people? Put it to a vote!

    April 3, 2009 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  16. Mike

    Why don't they just admit that they'd just rather wipe all homosexuals from the face of the earth?

    April 3, 2009 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  17. ran

    This is one of many reasons the Republicans are now and in the future going to have problems with holding any offices. They seem to think it is okay for Gov. to step in on issues like this but not okay for Gov. to help out in getting our economy back on track. As much as they want to they can not have it both ways. Issues like marriage/abortions/gay rights/religion does not belong in our Gov.

    April 3, 2009 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  18. Sara

    That's right Michael Steele, without those "activist judges" deciding that racial discrimination was unconstitutional, your black self would be waiting it out for the southern people to take it upon themselves to decide that you were a full 5/5ths with your own inherent human rights.

    April 3, 2009 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  19. Jim in San Jose

    If rights were subject to a vote, slavery would have lasted another 50 years. Think about it people!

    April 3, 2009 04:29 pm at 4:29 pm |
  20. Bjoerlingfan

    If all of these decisions were left up to the people we would live in a country where segments of the population were still classified as property.

    Courts are around to make sure the laws that the people vote on and pass are CONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore LEGAL. The court in Iowa found that the same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution's equal protection clause, and thus ILLEGAL.

    April 3, 2009 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  21. Doreen J.

    This is why the Republican party is history. Drag yourselves into the 21st century people. God, I'm glad to be Canadian.

    April 3, 2009 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  22. AnnMM

    "The Republicans weigh in...." translation: this entire story is utterly irrelevant.

    April 3, 2009 04:31 pm at 4:31 pm |
  23. joe

    Since when it is "activist" to uphold the United States Constitution. I thought courts were here to uphold the law? Obviously our legislatures don't know how to do it.

    April 3, 2009 04:31 pm at 4:31 pm |
  24. Gene

    This is why the republican party is slowly dying off. Nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative... but what's liberal and conservative in the bedroom should be decided by the individuals behind those bedroom doors, not the government.

    The bedroom and the home is one place we don't want government to interfere with our lives. Just because one person feels its wrong to have same sex marriage doesn't mean that they should push their belief onto others who have no problem with it.. especially those who are gay and want to get married.

    April 3, 2009 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  25. Adam

    Activist judges?! This is a constitutional issue. If the Iowa state constitution prohibits descrimination, it is the job of these judges to rule as such. Republicans are, yet again, displaying their gross incompetence and ignorance of the rule of law.

    April 3, 2009 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
1 2 3 4