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 ...
I should have said, "I don't doubt you... I KNOW distortions and deception is employed by all the camps.
Again, no one said “Gingrich” is legitimizing gay marriage. But his comments appear to confirm that he believes that gay marriage can be “legitimated” if people (rather than judges) vote for it. This is no more true for gay marriage than it is for slavery.
“Every time a vote has come up it’s been crushed by 70% of the populate.”
The average the amendments have passed by is 67%, if I recall. Most of have been passed in the middle of the last decade. Seven states have passed them in the 50%-60% ranges, most were much higher. The lowest of these was SD and CA, both passing amendments by 52%. I wouldn’t be shocked if prop.8 failed to pass if it was voted on now. Twenty years ago “gay marriage” wasn’t even an issue.
To dismiss the possibility that the voters of a state will always vote against the homosexual agenda and “gay marriage” doesn’t make sense when you look at the numbers, in my opinion. A soon as they think they have the numbers, they will quit howling about their civil rights being infringed by the majority, and howl for a popular vote. They won’t need our black robed masters or pol cronies if they can win a popular vote.
As far as the state is concerned the current definition of marriage is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time.
Freegards
Not every aspect of your and my definition of evil are enshrined in the Constitution. There IS a right way as defined by the Constitution to make law in this country. Following that path is the only legitimate way to resolve disagreements with our countrymen over what our laws should be. It’d be nice if everyone agreed with you about same-sex marriage, but they don’t, so you have to deal with it in the right way. Getting the courts to declare that something is in the Constitution when it’s not is the wrong way, just as shooting everyone who disagrees with you would be the wrong way. Electing legislators and an executive that agree with you and having a referendum are the right way.
Of course judicial power is derived from the people, but it’s not an ABSOLUTE power. It’s also not a legislative power. They can interpret the law but cannot make laws up.
People of unimpeachable conservative credentials like Todd Palin, Rick Perry, Michael Reagan, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, and Chuck Norris have endorsed Newt, with a partial endorsement from Sarah Palin. We can play the endorsement game all day long if you want to. As I recall, Rush and Levin endorsed Romney in 2008, as did Santorum, and I didn’t agree with them then either.
You can play guessing games with the election and momentum all you want, but nobody has been able to predict the twists and turns in this one yet. My feeling is that either Newt or Rick dropping out now would ensure Romney’s victory, because Romney could train all his negative fire on just one guy. At least right now, if he destroys one guy, the other one may rise up to replace him like Whack-A-Mole. Oh, and you aren’t SERIOUSLY telling us the National Review is “conservative” and not totally in the tank for Romney? We are not STUPID.
Then you reveal yourself to be just another SPINNER OF A WEB OF DECEIT in quoting smears against Newt that have been so thoroughly debunked repeatedly on this forum that you can’t possibly still be that ignorant to believe there’s any truth to them. You reveal that you had an agenda all along on this very thread to create a new lie and smear about Newt.
It’s been said repeatedly that there is NO NEW SPENDING proposed for Newt’s moon exploration. It’s all out of the existing NASA budget and private investment. STOP SPREADING THE LIE! Here are other answers...
http://www.newt.org/answers/#ryan-medicare-plan
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
http://www.newt.org/answers/#relationship-with-freddie-mac
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Furthermore, as the New York Times documents, Newt urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. View Newt’s Freddie Mac consulting contract here.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.
What part of Newt saying he “would vote against it” don’t you understand? What part of him having pledged to overturn any regional same-sex marriage laws through a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage don’t you understand?
He said nothing of the kind. It absolutely can be legalized, which even you would have to acknowledge if you’re living in the real world. The concept of “legitimizing” it never came up. You and I know abortion is legal but at least in our eyes not legitimate.
I'm pretty sure that's what you've been, at the very least, implying:
#75 "...admit that Gingrich misspoke or he was wrong, absolutely wrong, in this muddled0-headed way of trying to validate an evil."
#88 "No one is so idiotic to say that Gingrich is for gay marriage. But to think that there is ever a “right way” to legitimize an “intrinsic evil” as the Catholic Catechism calls it, is something quite different."
#137 "But he thinks that an evil (gay marriage) can be legitimated by the political process."
First I commend you for taking the time and trouble to lay out your case for Gingrich. This is not a place to debate the merits of Gingrich’s various positions except to say briefly that others have examined his proposals and found them impractical. Just to take one case, his idea for permanent moon-based colonies by the end of his second term is one that is not shared by a single private investment group, not one. Fortunately for him, he’s dropped this (at least in any of his speeches) since the FL rout.
Now to your main point. I get it about constitutional process. But as I said in post #142 in replying to OHelix’s #140, Gingrich is for sure against gay marriage. But what he appears to be saying is that in his view gay marriage may be “legitimated” by the legislative or initiative process rather than the judicial process because the former has constitutional warrant but not the latter. My contention is that process (legislative or judicial) can never confer legitimacy on an evil any more for gay marriage than it could if slavery were the issue.
Actually, there is no contradiction here. In all those posts you cite, #75 (”way of trying”), post #88 (”right way”) and #137 (”political process’), the theme of process remains consistent.
Even if Gingrich himself thinks that gay marriage is evil, he believes that a political “process” (rather than a judicial “process” confers a legal legitimacy to the issue. We disagree. When dealing with a moral evil, it is no more legitimated by process (legislative or judicial) than is slavery. And the same applies of course to incest, bestiality, necrophilia, or polygamy.
Keep in mind it’s a moon BASE, not a colony. A colony sounds a bit more grandiose. Newt is JUST getting the conversation started on this. This isn’t the kind of idea you give up in one week because no one jumped on board yet. Once a president spurs on this kind of motivation, the ball could really get rolling and the necessary personnel and investment might jump on board. Certainly I would hope when we get to the point where the budget is balanced and the debt paid off, I would support spending taxpayer money on this if private investment did not jump on board, because of the national security implications.
I’ll just repeat a couple comments found on the below article outlining the potential costs of the base. There is very clearly a debate going on about how feasible this project is, how much it would cost, whether private investment would do it. There should be a debate. The first step is to get the national conversation going and that’s what I give Newt credit for at this juncture. “Can’t do” is never the right answer when it comes to asking what science and technology coupled with human drive and ingenuity can accomplish.
http://www.space.com/14411-newt-gingrich-moon-base-cost.html
“The Commission on Wartime Contracting, a congressionally mandated commission, found $30B-$60B lost so far in the two wars. Up to $40B of that is waste, up to $20B pure fraud, just on contract services in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we can afford that kind of waste we can afford $35B for a permanently manned base on the moon.”
“Longer then eight years? I think not. They are building the first aircraft as we speak. This is the very beginning, the tip of the iceberg of Gingrich’s long term plan. There are several other private companies also working on private spacecraft, and there is not room here to fully discuss what comes next. There are many companies chomping at the bit to start business opportunities in low earth orbit and beyond, but right now the gate keeper, NASA is in no hurry to give up the keys to the gate. In fact, the current administrator, Charles Bolden, did not want a heavy lift rocket until after 2020 and had to be dragged and ordered by congress to start working on it.”
It is the accusation that we are “twisting” Gingrich’s words is what is troublesome. The very reason it appeared in the WSJ article was because it seemed like a break from what Santorum (and even Romney) believe. The notion that an intrinsic evil like slavery, gay marriage, incest, bestiality, or necrophilia can be conferred a legal legitimacy based on one process (legislative) rather than another (judicial) is simply revolting.
Again, to be charitable, Gingrich may have used an unfortunate choice of words, but why his acolytes are training their fire on us is beyond the pale.
How can it not be legal if the legislature makes it a law? Just because you and I disagree with a law doesn’t make it illegal. Abortion is legal...it’s immoral, but it is legal.
The article was a blog, not an actual newspaper article, and he is twisting what Gingrich said as much as anyone else in this thread is. It’s not like that would be the first time someone in a blog post twisted Gingrich’s words to make him look bad because they’re supporting another candidate. The blog post looks to have been written just to get a “headline” out there that would make Newt look bad. The part where the blog writer says what he thinks Newt is “suggesting” is just am opinion based on nothing but the writer’s imagination.
FR rules require the actual headline be used, so that’s what s/he did. There’s a major problem with headline writers distorting the essence of the story, in story after story, but in this case you can’t blame the poster.
Yes, you do make a good point and we have no disagreement on the strict issue of legal process. But Gingrich would never had said that slavery could be legitimated because the “legislature makes it a law” and for good reason because any violation of Natural Rights that come from Nature’s God is beyond the province of man. Maybe in the end, we have little to disagree about.
My own feeling is that he was tempted to pander to the WA audience that he was addressing where the Gay Marriage Act had just been signed into law. I suspect this to be the case since this indeed is what led to his moon-based colony statement in FL in order to pander to the Florida Space Coast segment of the electorate.
And, yes, he did refer to moon-based colony.
That is simply not correct. The article quotes exactly what Gingrich said. The “get a headline” notion is common to all candidates as about Santorum’s Satan comments or Romney’s recent comment about his wife driving a couple of Cadillacs. Many of the posts that appear on FR are done so precisely for their headline tag. So that’s not something for any of us to whine about.
The word legitimated simply means to make something legal. Slavery obviously couldn’t be made legal because it’s unconstitutional. I’m sure Newt would have used the exact same language for something like polygamy. Regardless, this is about as much nitpicking of the language as I can tolerate. Ultimately we need to look at what a candidate meant, not nitpick the words they use and figure out ways to misinterpret them.
Newt has been introduced in promoting science, technology and the space program throughout his entire career. He waited until the Florida speech to announce his plan because that was the most appropriate place. But it wasn’t something cynically cooked up to appeal to a local audience. You’re just quoting Romney’s spin from the debate there. This is a longtime interest for Newt and I was telling my dad he was probably going to announce an expansion of the space program at least a month before he finally did.
If you haven’t noticed, America has a space program and has for decades. Why would you expect a candidate to not comment on it or announce how he will run it differently than it is currently being run? All the candidates should tell us if they’re going to cut the program, stay with the status quo, or do something new with it.
I did concede that Gingrich’s choice of words were inelegant. But what he was quoted as saying did raise eyebrows. And slavery was in fact constitutional until the 14th A but it remained an evil all along that led to the Civil War. So was polygamy before Utah was admitted to the Union, but it was evil. You can never dress up an evil in a legal “process” and change or “legitimate” the evil complexion of the subject-matter.
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.