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..
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.
Therefore...
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............
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 can’t 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.
Gingrich actually said: “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.”
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.
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.
Nice title that doesn’t convey the message in Newts statement! /s