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 ...
Are you pimping for Romney?
There is a very small part of me that wants to see Santorum nominated so all you teletubby supporters can watch Rick run to the middle.
Is that the best you got? This is now a 2-man race. So you may like to reverse that question to yourself since Gingrich is becoming the spoiler to hand Romney the nomination.
********************************
Your post is so misleading it might be considered more than the more euphemistic term of "misrepresentation".
No sir! Your own editorial addition to the title indicates your intent: "[Right Way To Legalize Incest Too?]"
It is clearly your intent to misrepresent Gingrich's statement by implying FALSELY, that he is for gay marriage.
He states explicitly in the article itself, that he is not.
You clearly had the EXACT same intent to deceive as the author of the original headline.
At the moment the judges are taking that role. When the Caudillo comes on the scene they will be quickly replaced by men who do not wear gowns.
So you are telling me that Newton isn’t going to moderate as the nominee if he ever gets out of single digits in the polls?
And what about the whole tax thing. If a couple is married in one state and they move to another state will they file singly? I highly doubt it.
Nope, I am just trying to figure out your issue.
So far all I can figure out is that you are coming unglued.
“Gay” “marriage” is a gross violation of the natural law. Legitimate state power does NOT extend there.
The idea that the natural law can be overruled by a democratic vote is silly in the first place, and a direct attack on our republican form of government in the second place. The founders of this free republic intended that we be a nation of laws, not of men.
Is Newt opposed to gay marriage? YES.
Is Newt saying voters, not legislatures or judges should have say in the matter? YES.
Now that a candidate you oppose agrees with you, you're apoplectic! You don't agree, you say? I say to you 2+2=4.
You cannot rationally argue on one hand, traditional marriage can be defined and defended by voters and the voters will must be upheld and not also concede voters can do something different. It's logic 101.
Yours is a veritable rainbow of hypocritical thought and pettiness. It's something I'm coming to expect from the sainted senator's aiders and abetters.
And since you have no reason, you can only fall back to demogauge and innuendo so I expect you to attack me as being in favor of the homosexual agenda, leprosy and tooth decay.
Unfortunately for you, I voted for Prop 8 in CA. I also picked apart the fallacious logic throughout the federal judge's ruling against it which I actually took time to read. I know that my ability to cast that vote FOR one-man-one-woman marriage means alternatives could also appear on a ballot if enough signatures were gathered. Attempts in CA have been made many times and it never reached the ballot.
No being "intellectually" bankrupt" is you. It's you who have gone on for weeks doing your best to promote Santo over Gingrich. I have showed you more than once about your folly. I tried to keep off your thread but you did not show the same courtesy. I no longer am holding myself to that. We can all see you posting misleading stuff about Gingrich as this thread of yours is a testament to that.
Florida, my State, does not recognize fag marriage.
When we had the vote here in Texas for the State constitutional amendment banning "gay marriage", it was the largest turnout I've ever seen on election day.
We are not talking about what Gingrich thinks on gay marriage, bestiality, polygamy, abortion, incest, or polyamorous relations.
As the article begins “in a break with Santorum and Romney...” he now thinks there is a “right way” to legalize this rot. Those of us who still believe that our rights fro our Creator reject this.
So stop the spin, stop trying to accuse the bearer of the news, and if you have any complaints write to the authors of the article. But stop hurling invective and false accusations. Either that, or have the courage and integrity to speak up and admit that Gingrich misspoke or he was wrong, absolutely wrong, in this muddled0-headed way of trying to validate an evil.
Outside of their accountants no one in Hollywood has sufficient intellect to cross the street unaccompanied.
I don’t want to get into a flame war, but this election should be about unemployment, debt, anemic growth and gas prices.
You’ve got more than 100 posts on just 2-23-12, most of them trashing Newt. You’re a Newt hate-machine.
If you have all day and night to post Newt hate messages, that means one of two things:
1) You’re retired and can waste the day posting anti-Newt mesages.
2) You’re a paid agent provocateur. The question, of course, would be who’s paying you.
The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s to combat the “twin relics of barbarism,” slavery and polygamy. It was successful in doing so, to its everlasting credit.
Sadly, today’s Republican politicians have no idea what I’m talking about. The founders of that once-great political party wouldn’t recognize it now.
The current crop of GOP “leaders” have much more in common with Stephen A. Douglas and Gerald R. Ford than they do with Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Wilson Reagan.
That’s precisely what I am telling you. Here is the difference between Gingrich and Santorum. Newt is running on change, ideas and stabilizing the constitution that Obama has corrupted, which will give overall support, and there will be no need to scurry for the middle. Santorum on the other hand, is getting support from a rather small group of conservatives, if he would make it to the general he is in big trouble. Interestingly, he already started his move during the debate. I found it laughable, several weeks ago he made a big statement regarding women in the military. During the debate he back pedaled. Plan on seeing a lot of this in the future.
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.