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.
Which was just a way of saying that our rights derive from our nature. It was not a statement of Christian theology.
"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."
How does your first statement prove anything is intrinsically evil? You are jumping to a conclusion.
As for Newt's position, I agree. Whether you or I support gay marriage, it's ultimately a question about societal norms. In a representative democracy like ours it should be up to the people or their representatives to decide to recognize gay marriage, or not. It shouldn't be up to some judge.