Your conclusion that a Constitutional amendment will be necessary in order to define marriage is consistent w/Newt's view. He is on record as favoring that solution.
He was asked by the media to comment on the result of the referendum in Washington state; and, he concluded that the process was conducted in a legal and consistent manner w/our form of government. He also concluded that the process was superior to activist judges overruling the will of the people as has happened in the past. Again, those comments are stipulated as being observations on the process; not, on its result. He was also interviewed about this on Gretta last night and he specifically stated that he did not agree w/the result and personally would have voted against the referendum.
Newt's statements cannot be construed to mean he agrees with, or approves of, the result of the process. Newt has stated repeatedly that he defines marriage as specifically being between one man and one woman; and, that he favors a Constitutional amendment to that effect. He reiterated his position on marriage on Gretta last night.
I truly don't see how any fair minded person could logically conclude that Newt's statements regarding the Washington state referendum could be described as “pandering.” Take care, -Geoff
On small correction to your narrative....
Homo “marriage” in Washington state wasn’t legalized by referendum - it was enacted by legislative fiat in defiance of the expressed will of the voters.
We are attempting to organize a referendum to overthrow it. Given the strength of the dhimmicratic party here I doubt that it will ever reach the ballot.
"Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote"
Everybody knows a referendum will never stand up in court. if this referendum was for gay marriage it won't be challenged. This is the sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" battle we've been up against for years.
the reason a pro one man/one woman vote will never stand up in court is because this is not a state's rights issue. The reason its not a SRI is because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the USC. Carving out an exception to FFC which is what the Marriage Protection Act does is flimsy.
If Newt supports an amendement for the protection of traditional marriage he should have said "I think the only viable solution is an amendment to the constitution"
But he didn't say that to the Seattle Press, him saying it later to Greta, is to me in all fairness, trying to have it both ways.
Which to me is pandering.