Brian Brown, President of the National Organization For Marriage, to The New York Times:
Obviously it’s a loss to say that the federal government has no right to define marriage as it’s always understood it is just legal chicanery. It’s untrue. It’s a bad decision.
We’ll fight on forever. A culture can’t exist in the absence of the simple truth that there are differences between a mom and a dad and a husband and a wife. It’s like the law saying two plus two equals five.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota and failed GOP presidential candidate:
Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. This will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.
Representative Tim Huelskamp, a Republican who as a state legislator in Kansas authored that state’s amendment banning same-sex marriage, said that the decision did not mean the last word in the debate.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, author of the Kansas amendment banning same-sex marriage:
This doesn’t end it. In 1973 a decision here was supposedly going to end the abortion debate. If anything it’s been ignited and continues to be discussed. This is an attempt to short-circuit the process and to undo a decision, a strong bipartisan decision, signed by President Bill Clinton and supported by then Senator Joe Biden; for this court to overrule it, I think folks are tired of judges dictating.
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in Tupelo, Miss:
We are deeply saddened by today’s decision to not only allow but encourage same-sex marriage in our country — a country that was founded on biblical principles. We mourn for America’s future, but we are not without hope. Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty. The homosexual lobby and agenda is running rampant across America, and is even pervading our elementary schools. The judicial activism that is being demonstrated is deplorable as the Supreme Court is imposing its will on the people and legislatures of the fifty states in our United States of America. Now, we must warn against the coming persecution, the barrage of criticism and the aggressive action of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions of Americans to accept this lifestyle as the new normal. In addition, the trend of classifying statements that have a biblical foundation as ‘hate speech’ is one that AFA will do everything in its power to prevent.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:
We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their ‘marriage?’ This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.
Bryan Fischer, American Family Association:
h/t: Right Wing Watch