Gingrich Suggests There’s a ‘Right Way’ to Legalize Gay Marriage [Right Way To Legalize Incest Too?]

Wall St. J ^ | February 25, 2012 | Danny Yadron and Brody Mullins

[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.

[OHelix]

"...he believes that a political “process” (rather than a judicial “process” confers a legal legitimacy to the issue.

No, he believes one process is right, and the other process is wrong. He made no moral argument whatsoever.

Like you said, substitute gay marriage in the quote and see how it sounds:

Asked at the state Capitol what he thought of states passing laws that [ANYTHING AT ALL, MORAL OR NOT], 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..."

Here's your progression:

"...he is OK with states legalizing gay marriage through popular vote"

"he now thinks there is a “right way” to legalize this rot."

"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."

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.

Steelfish, you chose to make an intellectually dishonest attack on Newt Gingrich and you were called on it. You have retreated into the absurd in regards to redefining your position as it's been refuted.

Learn from it, and have the integrity not to open yourself up to it again. We'll all be on the same team soon enough, brother.

[Red Steel]

Yeah, I know what the rules are. I’ve only posted about 5,000 FR article in my time. He’s just mad because Santo is about to lose Michigan and Arizona because of a poor debate performance and because of his recently exposed vulnerabilities. If you know his posting history, he doesn’t like Gingrich.

[Just mythoughts]

Well, Jesus sure knew it. I remember him having a few choice words to say to the overtly pious “moral police” of his day.

You are so very correct. Jesus had a whole lot to say to the very 'religious' community during His flesh walk. He spent a whole lot of time chewing out those 'religious' leaders who kept biting at His ankles for spending time with the 'sinners'.

[j.argese]

“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.

I understand what you mean. Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Regardless of whether the headline was correct or misrepresented, gay marriage is wrong. Not that the OP was engaged in flim-flammery. Certain standards should be held to out of respect to the readership. But what can you say about that?

[Steelfish]

You write:

“No, he believes one process is right, and the other process is wrong. He made no moral argument whatsoever.”

And you cannot say (just like in slavery, incest, bigamy, polygamy, necrophilia) that either process is right in reference to something that is intrinsically evil. Such a position that seeks to straddle the issue is intellectually and morally deficient. But apparently, we must respectfully agree to disagree on this.

[OHelix]

"You write: No, he believes one process is right, and the other process is wrong. He made no moral argument whatsoever."

And I stand by it.

"But apparently, we must respectfully agree to disagree on this."

Regardless, it's a good thing, I think, to be able to fervently disagree, but still hash it out in a relatively respectful and courteous manner. Iron sharpens Iron. Thank you.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Steelfish. We're Being Managed ping.

• The Santorum Question: Is He Too Extreme For The Middle? [Gay Media Painting Santorum As Extreme]

[Steelfish]

Thanks to you too. Just to be sure, I was delighted when Gingrich won SC and was routing for him to win FL. But after Santorum’s trifecta win, it simply seemed to me that it had become a 2-man race. The idea is to defeat Romney and of course oust the imposter in the WH. To this we can drink.

[OHelix]

The idea is to defeat Romney and of course oust the imposter in the WH. To this we can drink.

...can't argue with that! ;o)