Posted on 02/25/2012 5:51:04 AM PST by VU4G10
But first, let's be clear: Newt said he would vote NO on same-sex marriage if it were on his ballot.
Now on to the faux controversy and the hypocrisy of those criticizing his answer.
You cannot on one hand say voters have the right to define marriage as one-man-one-woman, as I did in voting for Prop 8 in CA, and not understand voters can also do something else if it reached their ballots.
This site is replete with attacks on legislatures and judges imposing same-sex marriage on various states while arguing voters have chosen traditional marriage every time. Think about that a moment. It's consistent with Newt's point.
I ask this: since Santorum wants to amend the constitution to take marriage away from the states and define it as one-man-one-woman for all, why can't same-sex marriage supporters amend the constitution? You see, under our system either is a possible outcome. Does it make Santorum pro "homosexual agenda" if he acknowledged that possibility?
Oh no! Cognitive dissonance! Hate Newt! Hate! *short circuit*
The fact is you agree with Newt and rather than be intellectually honest, you use this as a "gotcha" moment to help the Sainted Santorum while ignoring his feet of clay.
With another shameless "breaking news" posting of this same story, I can only conclude Santorum supporters just can't help themselves.
All this hubbub does is feed into the claim Santorum's campaign is about building a divisive nanny state federal theocracy. It's corrosive to his election effort.
“Actually, it is a Constitutional issue. You can’t have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others can’t, especially since you have the likelihood of a couple “marrying” in a pro- state and then moving to an anti- state and having it end up in the courts (thereby giving activist judges an excuse to force it on an anti- state). This should be a Constitutional Amendment and put a screeching halt to this absurd notion.”
Of course you are right, but that isn’t going to happen.
Here’s why it won’t:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843523/posts?page=48#48
Eventually, the proponents of the gay agenda are going to win this one, “through the courts”...
I don’t like it any more than you do.
As I stated on another thread:
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.
It seems to me that the country is going to turn Socialist because so many Republicans/Conservatives are more worried about abortion (which has been settled law for years and not likely to be changed any time soon) and the definition of marriage than the debt, national security, fuel costs, health insurance and forced legislation. I would/will vote
for any Republican over the 0 in November.
He is NOT pandering. He's describing the system we have.
Besides, WHO is he pandering to??
The liberals in Washington state who voted yes are not going to vote for Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.
Some might vote Romney, but why go for Obamalite when you can vote Obama?
The pandering clamor makes no sense whatsoever.
“Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote”
________________
Hi Pietro-
I realize that is how the article mischaracterized Newt's remarks and the author of this article is being extremely disingenuous. A similarly worded title in a similar article last night was so disingenuous that the admin moderator actually changed the title to reflect what the facts within the article supported.
These types of deliberate misstatements are likely coming from Romney agent provocateurs who frequently and repeatedly mischaracterize both Newt's and Rick's positions or statements.
I know you referred to Newt's alleged statements “to the Seattle Press;” however, I have not seen any articles w/direct quotes of what Newt said that differ from what he reiterated on Gretta's show last night. If you have a link to any of his alleged statements, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post them so that I could read them.
Politico is notorious for using deliberately misleading statements. Note that the statement the author of the Politico article attributes to Newt is NOT in quotes. These types of “rewordings” or paraphrasing should always be viewed w/great skepticism. An honest author or writer always directly quotes any important statements attributed to a person.
I actually listened to what Newt said on TV (twice) and he did not say he was “OK” in any way w/the results of the Washington legislation. He indicated that the process they followed was legal and preferable to previous court decisions which had overturned the will of the people; however, he specifically said he would have voted against the legislation and that he thought that a Constitutional amendment would eventually be required; which he fully supports.
While your observation that a referendum will likely be overturned by the activist judiciary is almost certainly true; Newt addressed this possibility when he stated that he favors an Constitutional amendment; which he agrees will likely be needed.
(NOTE: Another poster corrected my earlier post; pointing out that the disputed legislation was was an act of the state legislature and that a referendum has not yet occurred.)
Regards,
-Geoff
You are right, and the people in so many states are wrong.
thanks for the clarification
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
PLEASE read Ozymandias Ghost's comment about what Newt ACTUALLY said about "gay" marriage. When in context it makes sense.
You are absolutely correct. If enough people wanted gladiator type fights to the death to be legalized, should it? Or necrophilia? Pedophilia? Torture?
Some things are WRONG and are not subject to the whim of barbarians’ votes. And same sex marriage is on that list.
This title is such a lying misrepresentation.
I listened to him talk, and he said that he favored people voting on the issue over some judge imposing it.
The RomneySlimeMachine is so slick.
You’re most welcome, Pietro.
Take care,
-Geoff
This is a “God” issue. Check the Bible!
The title of this is grossly misleading.
Newt is in favor because these referenda always defeat Gay “marriage.”
We have to fight this battle on numerous fronts, all at the same time, with sustained intensity. I know the "fiscal conservatives" don't like this, but we must not only walk and chew gum at the same time, but we must also juggle various other issues as well.
Until they understand this, we are as good as lost.
I predict it won’t be Mormons who push for polygamy, it’ll be the Muslims. It’s already happening in Great Britain.
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.