Skip to comments.Gingrich Suggests There’s a ‘Right Way’ to Legalize Gay Marriage [Right Way To Legalize Incest Too?]
Posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:09 PM PST by Steelfish
FEBRUARY 24, 2012 Gingrich Suggests Theres a Right Way to Legalize Gay Marriage
By Danny Yadron
OLYMPIA, Wash.In a break with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich declined to outright attack a new law that allows gay marriage in this state, suggesting he is OK with states legalizing gay marriage through popular vote.
Asked at the state Capitol what he thought of states passing laws that allow gay marriage, the former House speaker responded, 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.
Gay-marriage bills recently passed in Washington state and Maryland could still face referendums from voters. Shortly after Washingtons governor signed the law this month, Mr. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, met with its opponents and argued it weakens marriage at a time of high divorce rates, according to the Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
There should be a right way for a man to marry three women, too. Polygamy is much more natural than poking some other guy.
How is that statement problematic.
I tend to agree with Newt and Perry. There is no constitutional amendment against it at this time. The power resides in the State to decide the legality of gay marriage or not. I oppose it and it would never happen here in Texas. We certainly have a right as a state to outlaw it, just the same as the other states have a right to endorse buggery. The difference is that my state isn’t falling apart.
The “incest” barb is pretty stupid.
Wow! You got that right and so neatly put.
Let’s sit back and watch the Gingribots spin this to no end.
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
If a fair vote is held on whether people wish to be idiots, then that is that.
“How is that statement problematic.”
Keep in mind the Santorum people are running on a Moral Majority platform. If we aren’t automatically foaming at the mouth when we hear the words “gay marriage,” we must not be true believers.
Newt Gingrich DOES NOT approve of homosexual marriage.
In the State of Washington, where Newt was when he made this statement, the Democratically controlled state government just rammed legalized homosexual marriage in everyone’s faces.
There will be a referendum on the issue — guaranteed.
Texas won’t have a choice. They will have to accept marriage from other states. Courts will impose it on them, if other states have it.
“Wow! You got that right and so neatly put.
Lets sit back and watch the Gingribots spin this to no end.”
Having people *GASP* hold free votes as opposed to judges imposing law?
Is that something we are now supposed to be opposed to because the question on the ballot is something we dont like?
What would be Santorum’s view on this? Send in the Army and arrest all the voters?
Fox article and title :
Wow... both of you misrepresented his point entirely.
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.
So far you won’t have to accept “married” turd burglars from Michigan. We said “NO”.
This seems a reasonable statement. Gingrich would vote no, but if the people vote for it, then ok and judges should stay out.
I’ve always contended that the proper channel to advance homo marriage is thru the state legislature, NOT the courts.
I have no problem with what Newt is saying here. He is not advocating homo marriage.
The rights that have been bestowed on us by God are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Our constitution describes how we interpret those rights through the legislative process. If that turns out to be condoning the union of same sex couples, so be it. The problem arises when the Judicial or Executive branches of our government overstep their authority and override the peoples’ will.
Agree. If States wish to recognize fag marriage, that is their mistake.
Courts cannot legitimately impose it.
Three wolves and a lamb voting on dinner ...
I think at least theyre doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.