Posted on 02/25/2012 5:51:04 AM PST by VU4G10
With same-sex marriage laws passing in Maryland and Washington state and New Jersey headed for a fall referendum on the issue, Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote. Ginger Gibson sends in the key quote:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Of course he is. He is not a conservative like most of us. He is a statist, just a different kind of statist.
Can we have referendums limiting free speech? can we have referendums legalizing rape?
Newt would vote no, of course, but at least it can be done the “right way”
Indeed
Which was just a way of saying that our rights derive from our nature. It was not a statement of Christian theology.
"Thus you cannot say (just like with slavery, abortion, incest, bigamy, polygamy, necrophilia) that either process is right (legally or philosophically) in reference to something that is intrinsically evil."
How does your first statement prove anything is intrinsically evil? You are jumping to a conclusion.
As for Newt's position, I agree. Whether you or I support gay marriage, it's ultimately a question about societal norms. In a representative democracy like ours it should be up to the people or their representatives to decide to recognize gay marriage, or not. It shouldn't be up to some judge.
I have no quarrel with you on what is the better process for law-making. Well, the Catholic Catechism refers to homosexual conduct as an “intrinsically disordered moral evil.” Can we agree that murder, rape, slavery, incest, are evil? If not, we are in serious trouble as a nation. The first thing liberals and communist want to do is to water-down evil or sow discord on what constitutes evil.
Once again, he’s putting the power in the hands of the voters - where it should be. You exactly right!
Newt is Catholic and believes it is wrong.
That doesn’t mean he, or any of us...not a Catholic here...can somehow stop these states from voting, or overturn their decision.
Most states are against it. But a significant minority appear to be for it.
Your list of evils should include homosexuality, period, not just homosexual marriage.
The main reason people are more divided on this issue in society is if you murder, rape, rob etc you are victimizing someone who was merely going about their daily life pursuing life, liberty and happiness under the constitution and you victimize them against their will. Depriving them of their God given and their political rights.
But in homosexuality they can argue, and they do, that what willing participants in homosexual activity choose to do makes it ok, for them.
We know about men preying on boys, women preying on girls, etc., but that is defined as preying on a minor, not as a crime of homosexuality.
I for the life of me do not see anything wrong with what Rick Perry and Newt say about these matters...those who pretend they somehow have a key to stopping this are pretending.
A constitutional amendment would be the only key I know, and there isn’t one.
And that wouldn’t deal with the evil of homosexuality, only gay marriage.
Live in the real world.
Anything less is dishonest.
Newt, Your comment about the judges is a laugh. It has been proven time and time again that if the people vote no then some judge will rule that their vote, and whatever law the people pass, will be null and void. The whole process of voting is really all for nothing now since the judges vote over rides everyone else. Get a clue.
No it is not! The federal government has no business dealing in mariage, hetro or homo. I'm divorced, aka single, and because of my non-marriage status at my income level I pay $4000.00 per year more in federal income taxes. Why should I be punished by the federal government because I am single? Why should a married couple be rewarded by paying less in federal income taxes? It's social engineering and the federal government has no business in social engineering. And don't get me started on the 'child' deductions and the 'child' $1500 a year tax credit. Paying people to have babies! Pffffttt...
The federal government needs to butt out of people's lives with their tax preferences.
You get a clue. Newt has spoken at great length about how to stop activist judges and has proposed plans for the presidency and congress to be able to override their decisions.
Gingrich pledges support for constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2851011/posts
Since when do we vote on perversion? So if we vote that it is okay to murder, that makes it OK. This isn’t a state issue, this is a moral issue, and the behavior is immoral.
The Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and did not free a single slave directly, as it applied only to Confederate areas outside the reach of the Union. That’s why the 13th Amendment came in 1865. The real impact of the proclamation was to welcome fleeing slaves into the Union Army.
I know all about that. which is why his comment is even more absurd. He can’t have it both ways when he is making an argument.
Washington state is going to be the first to vote it in by popular vote.
We have a kind of 'triple-whammy' against us (the conservative, traditional marriage people). First, there are two issues trying to get on the ballot. One is a referendum to overturn the just-passed law. The other is an initiative defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. BOTH have to get signatures to get on the ballot and BOTH will be under fire from a gay-rights group that has the right (given by SCOTUS) to expose who signs the petitions. This could -and likely will- lead to voter intimidation issues. There's going to be a LOT of fear and confusion with these ballot issues, which may preclude either of them getting on the ballot.
Second, there is the vote itself. The eastern and south-western parts of Washington are pretty much guaranteed to vote against gay marriage. However, the northwestern part of the state...which contains most of the population....is full of rabid liberals. They WILL vote for gay marriage and it WILL pass, barring a divine miracle.
Third, there is the afore-mentioned 9th Circuit. They've proven time and again that the will of the people doesn't matter.
Even if Newt's not your choice for the nominee, he remarkable in how refreshingly NOT a panderer he is.
For example:
Nobody’s having it both ways at all. Newt knows what the right process is for making law and he’s explaining it here. He knows judging overturning the right process is wrong and has spoken out against it. He’s 100% consistent.
Regards,
-Geoff
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.