Skip to comments.Newt OK with gay marriage referenda
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 ...
I guess you missed the part of the quote where Newt says he doesn't agree with it. Once again, he's putting the power in the hands of the voters - where it should be.
And how is this this “gotcha” question supposed to be answered? I guess he could have said “I don’t agree with it and if I were president and some state put it on the ballot and the people voted for it I would get on national TV and denounce the will of the people”. “I would then issue an executive decree saying that marriage is between a man and woman”. All hail King Newton.
The way Newt answered the question is right. He said he disagreed with it personally, but would accept the will of the people. Let me point out that in all 40 states where it has been voted on it has been defeated by the people. If the people ever pass it will be from a New England liberal state or California, Oregon or Washington. The later two states being overan in the last two decades by anti-God liberals from California. No Southern state (where people still actually go to church) will ever have this passed by the people.
The people have a right to decide what laws they will live under, either through their representatives in a legislature or by acting as a legislature themselves.
That is not at all what he said you lying assholes...I hate romney..
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.
Tell us how you would stop the referenda for gay marriage.
Other states have had referenda and have voted no.
Rick Perry and Newt hold the same position. They are against gay marriage. They are pro states rights under the 10th amendment.
Tell us how Rick Santorum will stop states from voting on referenda if he disagrees with the way their voters vote on something.
Do tell us.
A constitutional amendment defining marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman would be the only way.
There isn’t one.
The referenda are going on NOW.
Only, of course, it the referendum supports gay marriage.
If the referendum opposes gay marriage, then we bring in a couple of judges to overturn the will of the people.
Newt is pandering here. He knows damn well where this will lead and should have the backbone to expose this charade.
Oh well, he needs votes to get back in the game and Wash. is a liberal state so............
There should be a consitutional amendment, but there isn’t one, is there?
So, yes you can have some states doing it and others not.
As bad as that is, you can have it, because you do have it.
You are misstating what’s going on here.
The question is, is it accidental, or on purpose.
If the democrats want to make their major issue gay marriage it only proves to the American people that they are way out of touch with the rest of the country.
What good are issues such as gay marriage if the gay American people cannot afford the gasoline to drive themselves to the nearest Kadaffi-like clothing store to buy their flamboyancy?
This can’t be a Romney plant story. That waste-of-oxygen presided over the first legalization of homo-marriage in the country. Or, do you think they’re trying to say, “see Newt likes it too.”?
But you purposely left that out, since your intent was to mislead the forum into the assumption that your pure exalted candidate would legislate morality from the Executive Branch. And therefore save us all from eternal damnation.
you think Romney cares about the hypocracy?
he berated Santorum during the debate of NCLB... yet he supported it too.
he berated Santourm over voting for earmarks that he requested.
and now that Newt is showing a little life again, here come the articles on FR negative to Newt and all the little stealth Mitwits who jump on every anti-santorum or anti-newt thread and spread falsehoods about the two conservatives in the race to give their butt boy Romney a clear path to the nomination.
It makes me sick. I can see right through it.
Isn't Wash. in the 9th circuit?
Didn't the 9th circuit just overturn Prop 8?
What makes you think that a vote for traditional marriage in Wash won't be overturned?
This is a condstitutional issued. Only an Ammendment to the constitution will stop this nonsense.
Referendums are a TOTAL waste of time, energy, and money.
Newt, being intellectually superior to the average bear, knows this; ergo he's pandering.
Of course Obama already deemed DOMA “unconstitutional” guess he's the tenth judge, and is now breaking constitutional law by not defending the federal law in court...
...oh and Zero "says" he believes marriage is one man and one woman...lie # 64925486654.
He’s not “pandering,” whatever that may mean. To whom would he supposedly be “pandering?” The question deals with states’ rights and the activist judiciary.
One thing he should have gone on to mention is that even states which have rejected “gay marriage” through referenda are now having the judges overturn these laws because they, the judges, don’t agree with them.
its a states rights issue.
but lets think about it.....I dont think any government, local, state, or federal, should be in the marriage business.
eliminate the current income tax system and have a flat tax and let people sign up anyone they want to as their partner for legal purposes ....and let the individual and their church or whatever belief system they may or may not have perform marriages....if that is what they want.
But I’ll NEVER understand how you can say killing living human beings who can’t defend themselves is okay. It just doesn’t compute.
This whole “gay marriage” thing is really just about money (i.e. scamming the employer). The only reason why queers want to get married is so that they can collect employee benefits for their fellow arse bandit. It’s nothing more than that...
They are not going to decide what their marriage law will be (unless they vote for gay marriage) a judge or two will decide what their marriage laws will be.
He knows that, you know that, I know that.
He's telling the people of Wash what they want to hear and it bears no relationship to the truth.
Newt isn’t pandering.
He made statements of fact.
But facts are facts.
And the courts do what ever they like and Newt has had a lot to say about that.
Newt is supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. It was posted on FR yesterday, but the false accusations keep being made.
The argument will be: many states’ citizens voted to CONTINUE WITH SLAVERY in their own states.
It was found unconstitutional. The gays will say the states that vote no on gay marriage are denying them of their rights... and as such, it is unconstitutional.
It would have to be a constitutional amendment to say marriage is between one man and one woman. Nothing less will do.
If this goes through... next up, NAMBLA and the Mormans/polygamy.
My belief is that this issue is a financial issue and when the tax code is reflective of the individual rather than the structure of the family or their habits - deductions - this issue will go away. Deductions for adults, deductions for children, tax owed. Eliminate all the boxes that determine marital status or head of household status. As for benefits for family members carried on employer policies, this should be defined by the employer. Legal issues, such as medical decisions and rights to property should be handled as “life directives” through wills, living wills, estate planning, written agreements in the event of seperation, (the lawyers would love this), all of these ways to put the power and responsibility back into the hands of the individual. The subject needs to be changed back to the economy and the impact of excess and punitive taxation.
They can pass a thousand laws and it willnot change the way most people look at freak “marriages”.
You have to take his comment in full context and not read something into it by the headline. The Democrat controlled state capital passed gay marriage with the Governor signing it. We Washington voters are saying, wait just one cotton picking minute, you cant do that without us state citizens having a chance to have our say in a general election. If enough signatures are gathered, gay marriage will be on the November ballot. If the voters say NO, the law is dead. It should be the citizens not Olympia deciding something as controversial as this. That is what Newt is saying, and you can bet at the Newt rally and any Republican rally, there will be plenty of signature gatherers.
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
Gingrich actually said: I think at least theyre 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 dont agree with it, I would vote, no, if it were on a referendum where I was but at least theyre doing it the right way.
Restating your misstatements doesn’t bolster the claim.
Newt has stated the factual situation.
States have voted both against and for gay marriage.
If you believe in states rights under the 10th Amendment, and if there is no constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, this is how it is. These are the facts.
If you read the rest of this thread and step out of your personal echo chamber, you will see that he stated actual truth and his actual beliefs...against gay marriage as a concept but realizing certain state’s voters have voted for it.
That you would attack that and make misstated claims about his motives causes us to question your motives.
Rick Perry holds to exactly the same thing as Newt said, before he ever ran for president and after he got out and while he was running.
There’s no other rational way to look at it.
Read the thread.
Also, tell us how Santorum is going to stop the referenda in states, when he doesn’t agree with the outcome.
Do tell us.
I believe in a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
There isn’t one.
Those are the facts.
Like CW said, like ‘em, hate ‘em, facts are facts.
i guess you miss the part where newt also says he wants a constitutional amendment..so is he still right on states rights?
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.
That headline is a complete misrepresentation, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Instead of participating in lying attacks on Newt, I’d rather discuss the candidate who has an actual record of pandering to sodomites. Have you seen the little pink flyer distributed to homosexuals from Willard, wishing them a happy “Pride” day? Pride in what? Buggering?
Romney is a truly loathsome, slime-covered organism.
Flat out misinterpretation of what Newt said. Additionally, he pointed out that 70% of the voters are against gay marriage. So why not take it to the voters rather than liberal judges? This is clearly the best approach. He recognizes this rather than blah, blah blah from the other candidates. My heavens, this guy has ideas. Stop the madness.
Do you have an opinion on your own post?
Or are the other Freepers correct in thinking that you intended this as a “hit piece”?
I don’t know why you jerkoffs keep on with this like you have anything
Romney is basically in favor of the homosexual agenda
Newt has said publicly he opposes the homosexual agenda in total and those that want any of that should not vote for him.
Is that not clear enough for you.
Well ...... VU4G10 ........ we're waiting? ......
Yeah! What Catherine of Aragaon said! This is Pollutico. And Alexander Burns is a willard shill.
"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.
Yep. Further, he stated that he believes the issue will eventually be dealt with at the federal level, and he supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I hate politico, and would be happy if we never saw their trash posted on FR.
And if a state wanted to redefine a mile as being 4800 feet, that would be okay too, because it’s a states rights issue. And if they wanted to redefine an hour as being 53 minutes, same thing. And a quart is new 3 cups. Again, it should be okay because it’s a “states rights” issue.
THIS IS PANDERING........Tricky Ricky confuses people again.
Said Santorum: “Its not discrimination not to grant privileges. Its discrimination to deny rights...Everyone has a right to live their life, that doesnt mean that theyre entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those relationships.
If that is the case, then what is the point of have a representative government? Why not just have state referendums on every issue?
Suppose a company has operations in multiple states; believe it or not that happens.
Some states say you have to respect gay marriage, another state says you don't. Now what?
de facto recognition of gay marriage is what.
So the end result is the same; either the courts knock traditional marriage referendums down or business reality makes them moot.
Mr Gringrich understands this better than anyone on this board.
I aopologize about the "knucklehead" remark, I really do like all you guys.
>>Tell us how you would stop the referenda for gay marriage.
It works - even when reproductive resources are stolen by occult parasites to temporarily prop up their own fitness at the expense of the host.
Sooner or later the host-culture implodes, taking the parasitic abominations of nature into oblivion along with it. That’s historical fact.
Almost makes ya wish for an Ice Age.
Couldn’t Obama by executive order now order the IRS to recognize gay liaisons as “joint returns”. He might be holding back for fear that this would cost the treasury more than he can spare.
The argument will be: many states citizens voted to CONTINUE WITH SLAVERY in their own states.
It was found unconstitutional
NO....a constitutional amendment which went into affect in Dec 1865, near the end of the civil war....without the slave states ratifying the 13th amendment...it was ratified years AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.
ps I neither support slavely nor am I southern...just want to get the facts straight.