Posted on 02/25/2012 5:51:04 AM PST by VU4G10
With same-sex marriage laws passing in Maryland and Washington state and New Jersey headed for a fall referendum on the issue, Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote. Ginger Gibson sends in the key quote:
I think at least they're doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will. I don't agree with it, I would vote no if it were on a referendum where I was but at least they're doing it the right way.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
"Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote"
Everybody knows a referendum will never stand up in court. if this referendum was for gay marriage it won't be challenged. This is the sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" battle we've been up against for years.
the reason a pro one man/one woman vote will never stand up in court is because this is not a state's rights issue. The reason its not a SRI is because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the USC. Carving out an exception to FFC which is what the Marriage Protection Act does is flimsy.
If Newt supports an amendement for the protection of traditional marriage he should have said "I think the only viable solution is an amendment to the constitution"
But he didn't say that to the Seattle Press, him saying it later to Greta, is to me in all fairness, trying to have it both ways.
Which to me is pandering.
Yep. Further, he stated that he believes the issue will eventually be dealt with at the federal level, and he supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I hate politico, and would be happy if we never saw their trash posted on FR.
And if a state wanted to redefine a mile as being 4800 feet, that would be okay too, because it’s a states rights issue. And if they wanted to redefine an hour as being 53 minutes, same thing. And a quart is new 3 cups. Again, it should be okay because it’s a “states rights” issue.
THIS IS PANDERING........Tricky Ricky confuses people again.
Said Santorum: “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights...Everyone has a right to live their life, that doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those relationships.
If that is the case, then what is the point of have a representative government? Why not just have state referendums on every issue?
Suppose a company has operations in multiple states; believe it or not that happens.
Some states say you have to respect gay marriage, another state says you don't. Now what?
de facto recognition of gay marriage is what.
So the end result is the same; either the courts knock traditional marriage referendums down or business reality makes them moot.
Mr Gringrich understands this better than anyone on this board.
I aopologize about the "knucklehead" remark, I really do like all you guys.
bump.
>>Tell us how you would stop the referenda for gay marriage.
Natural Selection.
It works - even when reproductive resources are stolen by occult parasites to temporarily prop up their own fitness at the expense of the host.
Sooner or later the host-culture implodes, taking the parasitic abominations of nature into oblivion along with it. That’s historical fact.
Almost makes ya wish for an Ice Age.
Couldn’t Obama by executive order now order the IRS to recognize gay liaisons as “joint returns”. He might be holding back for fear that this would cost the treasury more than he can spare.
The argument will be: many states’ citizens voted to CONTINUE WITH SLAVERY in their own states.
It was found unconstitutional
NO....a constitutional amendment which went into affect in Dec 1865, near the end of the civil war....without the slave states ratifying the 13th amendment...it was ratified years AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.
ps I neither support slavely nor am I southern...just want to get the facts straight.
The best thing you (plural) could do is rename your name and remove George Washington from such embarrassment.
Oops: rename your state
I wish the moderators would remove this ridiculously misleading headline. It is intentionally inflammatory.
Nice title that doesn’t convey the message in Newts statement! /s
What a stupid headline. It’s like the reporters don’t even read the stories they write.
WTF??? Maryland's just passed into law. There is no referendum planned on that, at least not yet.
NJ libs are saying they are against voters having a say on this. Cant disagree with Newts general point.
Let me make a respectful dissent here. Of course Newt is against gay marriage and yes, he believes that it is constitutionally proper to have the people and state legislators rather than rogue justices and state court judges impose their own values. So far no disagreement.
But at the core of this debate lies the fact that our rights are derived from Nature’s God-our Creator. The Framers so believed this.
Thus you cannot say (just like with slavery, abortion, incest, bigamy, polygamy, necrophilia) that either process is right (legally or philosophically) in reference to something that is intrinsically evil. Such a position that seeks to straddle the issue by justifying one process over another is intellectually and morally deficient.
There are times when regardless of the candidate we support, we are called to stand up and proclaim that some issues can never be “legitimated” by process. Why? Because Natural Law tells us that evil can never be ordained as proper on account of legal process.
That makes me so ill. I keep hoping Willard will make some lying remark about never supporting homosexuals, and then Newt will bring out the flyer.
Especially since it's in 'Breaking News' too.
Exactly. The solution isn’t to have endless conversations about what constitutes a marriage or who should be able to marry.....the solution is to get governments out of the marriage business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.