"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.
THIS IS PANDERING........Tricky Ricky confuses people again.
Said Santorum: “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights...Everyone has a right to live their life, that doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those relationships.
“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