Posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:09 PM PST by Steelfish
FEBRUARY 24, 2012 Gingrich Suggests There’s a ‘Right Way’ to Legalize Gay Marriage
By Danny Yadron
OLYMPIA, Wash.–In a break with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich declined to outright attack a new law that allows gay marriage in this state, suggesting he is OK with states legalizing gay marriage through popular vote.
Asked at the state Capitol what he thought of states passing laws that allow gay marriage, the former House speaker responded, “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.”
Gay-marriage bills recently passed in Washington state and Maryland could still face referendums from voters. Shortly after Washington’s governor signed the law this month, Mr. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, met with its opponents and argued it weakens marriage at a time of high divorce rates, according to the Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
OK- If you are saying Gingrich mis-spoke, then it’s different. But if you are saying that Gingrich was correct in saying there is a “right way” to legitimize the evil of homosexuality or any evil, we must part company. But you can’t have it both ways.
Well said. I’m been trying all day to get this through to the minds of the die-hard supporters of Gingrich but its like hitting impenetrable rock. Just may be you’ll have some luck.
“...suggesting he is OK with states legalizing gay marriage through popular vote.”
Me to but look at the numbers. Every time a vote has come up it’s been crushed by 70% of the populate.
The only way they (’they’ meaning those people trying to dictate/destroy our morals/society) can ever get any bill like this passed is by legislation or judicial fiat.
JB
I have supported Newt, I support Newt now, and I will continue to support Newt.
I want a real leader, not a whiny televangelist.
I chose not to read your entire post... it would be a waste of my time.
Go here and deal with it... LOL http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2851011/posts
President Newt Gingrich—”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
Ok this is your last chance..........newt is saying, the decision is up to the voters rather than judges imposing their will. Do you understand that gay marriage has a better chance of passing with a single liberal judge than it would with voters?
Asked at the state Capitol what he thought of states passing laws that allow gay marriage, the former House speaker responded, “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 bet there’s a big fat old queer somewhere on Capital Hill who just got the hots for big fat old Newt.
You keep missing the point. Do you think there is a “right way” to legitimize incest; abortion, polygamy simply because the majority of people so wills it, or do you believe in Natural Law, “Nature’s God” as our Declaration has it?
You’re having a hard time understanding the difference between process and results. We live in a democracy and you cannot impugn the democratic process because you don’t like the results. Our country allows for people to set their own policy within constitutional limits. Newt impugns when judges decide to act as dictators and circumvent the law or the constitution.
Please explain to me what was wrong with the PROCESS of how the state is going about making this law. Note that you CANNOT reference what the law is about in having this discussion about process, because it is irrelevant, unless you can show that the content of the law is unconstitutional.
The author's editorial you quote has the same intention that you have had throughout this exchange... to suggest that the choice of words "right way" implies that Gingrich is for legalizing gay marriage.
As I said before:
His comment was not an approval of gay marriage... he says very clearly that he is not for it and that he would vote “no”.
His comment was a condemnation of pushing an agenda by judicial activism.
It amazes me that people are either so lacking in reading comprehension, or so dishonest, that they can completely mischaracterize a solid conservative position as liberal one.
Which is Newts point.
Yes, there is a right way to make morally wrong law. It’s called going through the voters, the legislature and the executive branch.
See “Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law” for a primer on the process of how laws are made:
http://www.schooltube.com/video/fcde4d15a9276c9a09d3/
They think they can buy themselves and candidates out of these problems. Is this a sort of “final solution”?
Truth is, you cannot buy morals and good bottom lines. You got to form these people, encourage good behavior and certainly not take the “efficient” route of disregarding, unless as a temporary expedient one is ready to trash it all before getting out of the deal with the loot.
See if you can grasp this point. I am not interested in engaging in any such discussion with you..... move on.
President Newt Gingrich—”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
I do not wish to and I don't believe I have... but, if I have and I just don't see it, I do apologize.
Candidly, I just don't buy that it wasn't your intention to imply FALSELY that Gingrich was in favor of Gay Marriage.
If, as you seem to be suggesting now, that was not your contention, but rather your contention was that he was wrong to suggest there is a right and wrong way for someone who holds a different view from him to pursue their position politically, then I would invite you to explain, given your recent posts on this thread, how Newt's making a distinction regarding a right and wrong way to pursue a political position he disagrees with, reflects poorly on him.
Well, for years Conservatives have been proposing gay marriage ban initiatives, and criticizing judges who strike them down as judicial overreach, overriding the will of the people. Stands to reason, if we take the position that state voters have the power to ban it, then they also have the power to allow it by the same process. How can you say the issue is up to the people of the state, but then also say that the people are only allowed to rule on the issue if they choose to agree with you? It’s hypocrisy, and an indefensible position.
Before anyone jumps on me, let me make it clear that I am against gay “marriage” in any way, shape, or form. I’m just also against Conservatives making up the rules as they go along and descending to the depths of political expediency that the commiecrats have.
I think that's the real issue here. Steelfish and I probably are very like minded on most issues, but during a campaign we all have our favorites we want to promote and defend... and it's just human nature to "bend" our integrity a little bit more than normal when we're passionate, for the sake of "political expediency" as you say. Especially when it seems everyone else is doing it, too. ;o)
I've had so many good friends who were homosexual over the years; I loved them then, and I love them now.
But if I was an employer, or a landlord, or a restaurant or nightclub owner, or on a school board or the honchos of the local Boy Scouts or Camp Fire, I'd sure like to be able to exercise my right to discriminate against folks I knew were homosexual because they were homosexual if I wanted. Likewise, if a club or apartment complex or (God forbid) even a school wanted to discriminate in favor of folks they knew were gay (and the only way one really knows is because the gay person has announced it), they have that right to exercise, as well.
As it is, we are prohibited from rejecting open homosexuality in our moral choices via business and civic life, and our schools, etc. As long as our hands are tied with regard to BEHAVING MORALLY, we're stuck. The problem isn't gay marriage. The problem is that the law prohibits us from exercising our right to turn away from them.
Newt talks about returning state's rights, and he talks about the Constitutional process to remove activist judges.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
“There are certain actions that are just outright immoral.”
I agree, but there are plenty of things that are immoral that are also legal. Something being immoral doesn’t necessitate it being impossible to legalize, that is determined by legal processes which are defined by our national and state constitutions. If you have a problem with those processes, why don’t you come out and say it instead of using moral outrage to hide your disgust with our system of doing things?
“It also doesn’t matter that the headline was a misrepresentation of the Speaker’s position.”
It might not matter to you, but to those of us who remember that integrity and honesty are more important than pushing their favorite candidate, it certainly does.
You nailed it -- Caudillo.
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.