Skip to comments.Newt OK with gay marriage referenda
Posted on 02/25/2012 5:51:04 AM PST by VU4G10
click here to read article
The best thing you (plural) could do is rename your name and remove George Washington from such embarrassment.
Oops: rename your state
I wish the moderators would remove this ridiculously misleading headline. It is intentionally inflammatory.
Nice title that doesn’t convey the message in Newts statement! /s
What a stupid headline. It’s like the reporters don’t even read the stories they write.
WTF??? Maryland's just passed into law. There is no referendum planned on that, at least not yet.
NJ libs are saying they are against voters having a say on this. Cant disagree with Newts general point.
Let me make a respectful dissent here. Of course Newt is against gay marriage and yes, he believes that it is constitutionally proper to have the people and state legislators rather than rogue justices and state court judges impose their own values. So far no disagreement.
But at the core of this debate lies the fact that our rights are derived from Nature’s God-our Creator. The Framers so believed this.
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. Such a position that seeks to straddle the issue by justifying one process over another is intellectually and morally deficient.
There are times when regardless of the candidate we support, we are called to stand up and proclaim that some issues can never be “legitimated” by process. Why? Because Natural Law tells us that evil can never be ordained as proper on account of legal process.
That makes me so ill. I keep hoping Willard will make some lying remark about never supporting homosexuals, and then Newt will bring out the flyer.
Especially since it's in 'Breaking News' too.
Exactly. The solution isn’t to have endless conversations about what constitutes a marriage or who should be able to marry.....the solution is to get governments out of the marriage business.
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”
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
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.
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.
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 cant have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others cant, 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:
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”
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.)
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.
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.