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.
Of course he is. He is not a conservative like most of us. He is a statist, just a different kind of statist.
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.
Gingrich pledges support for constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2851011/posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.