Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: txrangerette
I'm not misstating anything.

Isn't Wash. in the 9th circuit?

Didn't the 9th circuit just overturn Prop 8?

What makes you think that a vote for traditional marriage in Wash won't be overturned?

This is a condstitutional issued. Only an Ammendment to the constitution will stop this nonsense.

Referendums are a TOTAL waste of time, energy, and money.

Newt, being intellectually superior to the average bear, knows this; ergo he's pandering.

16 posted on 02/25/2012 6:25:48 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Pietro

He’s not “pandering,” whatever that may mean. To whom would he supposedly be “pandering?” The question deals with states’ rights and the activist judiciary.

One thing he should have gone on to mention is that even states which have rejected “gay marriage” through referenda are now having the judges overturn these laws because they, the judges, don’t agree with them.


18 posted on 02/25/2012 6:47:04 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Pietro; txrangerette; livius

Newt isn’t pandering.

He made statements of fact.

Like them.

Hate them.

But facts are facts.

And the courts do what ever they like and Newt has had a lot to say about that.


23 posted on 02/25/2012 7:05:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Pietro
Hi Pietro-

Your conclusion that a Constitutional amendment will be necessary in order to define marriage is consistent w/Newt's view. He is on record as favoring that solution.

He was asked by the media to comment on the result of the referendum in Washington state; and, he concluded that the process was conducted in a legal and consistent manner w/our form of government. He also concluded that the process was superior to activist judges overruling the will of the people as has happened in the past. Again, those comments are stipulated as being observations on the process; not, on its result. He was also interviewed about this on Gretta last night and he specifically stated that he did not agree w/the result and personally would have voted against the referendum.

Newt's statements cannot be construed to mean he agrees with, or approves of, the result of the process. Newt has stated repeatedly that he defines marriage as specifically being between one man and one woman; and, that he favors a Constitutional amendment to that effect. He reiterated his position on marriage on Gretta last night.

I truly don't see how any fair minded person could logically conclude that Newt's statements regarding the Washington state referendum could be described as “pandering.” Take care, -Geoff

29 posted on 02/25/2012 7:34:50 AM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson