Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Suggests There’s a ‘Right Way’ to Legalize Gay Marriage [Right Way To Legalize Incest Too?]
Wall St. J ^ | February 25, 2012 | Danny Yadron and Brody Mullins

Posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:09 PM PST by Steelfish

FEBRUARY 24, 2012 Gingrich Suggests There’s 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 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.”

Gay-marriage bills recently passed in Washington state and Maryland could still face referendums from voters. Shortly after Washington’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bsarticle; bsheadline; dishonest; hitpiece; homosexualagenda; kenyanbornmuzzie; lies; mittromney; newt; newtgingrich; newtsignednom; ricksantorum; santorumattackbots; wsj4romney; wsj4santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:16 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

There should be a right way for a man to marry three women, too. Polygamy is much more natural than poking some other guy.


2 posted on 02/24/2012 3:08:33 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
“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.”

How is that statement problematic.

3 posted on 02/24/2012 3:11:43 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


4 posted on 02/24/2012 3:12:17 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie; onyx; Mariner; Red Steel; Lazlo in PA; American Constitutionalist; ...

Wow! You got that right and so neatly put.
Let’s sit back and watch the Gingribots spin this to no end.


5 posted on 02/24/2012 3:12:54 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

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.


6 posted on 02/24/2012 3:13:30 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

“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.


7 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:19 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Real marriage is a state sponsored contract that is recognized by all 50 states.
How is homosexual “marriage” a state rights issue when DOMA is the law of the land where you can be a homo male wife or female husband only in the state where your weirdness was “consummated?”
8 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:40 PM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
“...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.”

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.

9 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:46 PM PST by SatinDoll (No Foreign Naionals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

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.


10 posted on 02/24/2012 3:15:42 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“Wow! You got that right and so neatly put.
Let’s sit back and watch the Gingribots spin this to no end.”

Spin what?

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?


11 posted on 02/24/2012 3:17:12 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Hey SantoBot, at least post an article title that reflects the accuracy of the statement.

Fox article and title :

Gingrich: At least states are using bills, not judges, to legalize same-sex marriage

12 posted on 02/24/2012 3:17:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie; Steelfish

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.


13 posted on 02/24/2012 3:17:46 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So far you won’t have to accept “married” turd burglars from Michigan. We said “NO”.


14 posted on 02/24/2012 3:18:07 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
“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.”

This seems a reasonable statement. Gingrich would vote no, but if the people vote for it, then ok and judges should stay out.

15 posted on 02/24/2012 3:18:56 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


16 posted on 02/24/2012 3:18:56 PM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

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.


17 posted on 02/24/2012 3:19:49 PM PST by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Agree. If States wish to recognize fag marriage, that is their mistake.

Courts cannot legitimately impose it.


18 posted on 02/24/2012 3:22:03 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Three wolves and a lamb voting on dinner ...

“I think at least they’re doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote...”


19 posted on 02/24/2012 3:22:30 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: OHelix

The problem is who’s saying it. If Rick Sanctimonious said it, these same perps would be hailing it as a statement of supreme Constitutional wisdom.


21 posted on 02/24/2012 3:23:45 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
You are so quick to condemn as usual. States rights is what Newt defended. This is happening throughout states due to states rights issues but unitl a strong person is in the leadership to fight for a marriage amendment to the constitution, as marriage between one man, one woman, the states will vote yes or no as a majority. This is important to have an amendment. The libs don't want that, of course. So, get the information correct.
22 posted on 02/24/2012 3:24:59 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
I agree with Newt.

We voted against homosexual (there is nothing gay about it) marriage here in California and judges struck it down.

Don't we have the right to make laws and have our judges enforce them, as opposed to 'judges' making laws?

23 posted on 02/24/2012 3:25:13 PM PST by mckenzie7 (Democrats = Trough Sloppers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’ll note that you didn’t “misunderstand” Newt’s response, you intentionally “misrepresented” it. Please let us know your accepted model for how same-sex marriage can be legally outlawed if the lawmakers and population want it, short of a national constitutional amendment, which Newt supports.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-marriage-pledge-family-leader-/1

Gingrich vows support for gay marriage ban

Newt Gingrich affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in a detailed response to a marriage pledge by a conservative Iowa group.


24 posted on 02/24/2012 3:27:30 PM PST by JediJones (Watch "Gingrich to Michigan: Change or Die" on YouTube. Best Speech Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
Sorry... I posted the wrong link before. Gingrich answering a question on gay marriage by a self described gay American:

href=http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/12/21/newt-gingrich-asked-about-gay-marriage.cnn#/video/politics/2011/12/21/newt-gingrich-asked-about-gay-marriage.cnn
25 posted on 02/24/2012 3:30:05 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Is there a legal way to impose on me a gay married couple? Paying taxes for their recognition? A budget for it? Say what?

My buddy in NYC could not get his marriage license for a week because gays had overflowed the process. THis is utter horse crap.

Gay marriage is a not a civil right. Heck, the gays have declared heterosexual marriage and birth not a civil right.

I should not have to hire a gay married person, enough said.

Gingrich is talking about imposition or legalization?

What part of the word war have they not understood that is coming from these groups? THis is genocide, folkes, GENOCIDE, under the guise of protecting them from harassment.


26 posted on 02/24/2012 3:31:49 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

And men who actually know right from wrong should hold their tongues? Isn’t it the responsibility of “leaders” to attempt to point out the difference?


27 posted on 02/24/2012 3:33:34 PM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
You are becoming disrespectful to those of us who believe in truth and integrity. You should be ashamed for intentionally misleading to cause harm.
28 posted on 02/24/2012 3:34:07 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The title is a misrepresentation of what Gingrich said.


29 posted on 02/24/2012 3:35:02 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Hi! I’m a proud Gingribot. The truth is, the gate was left open a long time ago, not by Newt but by Liberals. Homosexuality is now acceptable, and gay marriage will be mainstream. It is never going to be overturned, the same as abortion is never going to be overturned. Gingrich is smart enough to know this, he didn’t create it, he doesn’t agree with it and he is telling the truth. He merely suggests that states voter referendums is the best approach. You are trying to suggest that Newt supports gay marriage which is the real spin. I suspect your guy is Santorum, I guarantee you if we would be unlucky enough to have him as president, he won’t and can’t do a damn thing about it. He just talks a big game to get peoples pants in a wad and thus, votes.


30 posted on 02/24/2012 3:37:03 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

THe muslims are going to make their claims for 4 wives and 60 children and the budget is going to crack.

THis is total hypocrite havoc and imposition of stuff we do not need.

And do not let me get started about the “right for the pooper”. THis is why Jews circumcized men. In Islam women want circumcision so as to encourage men to be gay, by the way, because it removes comfort then from both sexes. And this is where we are headed.

Women are going to get destroyed when men go to men, there is no question about it. The term barefoot and pregnant coming from feminists was taught to them by maniulative leftist gay men, by the way.


31 posted on 02/24/2012 3:38:06 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trisham
The title is a misrepresentation of what Gingrich said.

And here I thought that the spewing of lies and deception was limited to the liberals. Who knew that the practice is well practiced within the belly of the pious?

32 posted on 02/24/2012 3:39:24 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All

There are certain actions that are just outright immoral. This is one of them. Legislating, executive order, judicial decree or referendum doesn’t make it right. It also doesn’t matter that the headline was a misrepresentation of the Speaker’s position.


33 posted on 02/24/2012 3:40:08 PM PST by j.argese (FR is a Newt-ist Colony, not a Romney Room, Paul Pavillion or Santorum Sanctum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Let's see... you mischaracterize Gingrich as being for gay marriage, when he is clearly not... then you say "Let’s sit back and watch the Gingribots spin this..."

If you have to resort to crap like that to try to influence people... you need to recognize your position is probably wrong to begin with.

34 posted on 02/24/2012 3:40:40 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

That’s not exactly the point. The results of plebiscites can be just as wrong, just as corrupt, as Supreme Court decisions or acts of Congress. Do candidates for election just accept the wrong decisions? Oh, well. I can’t wait for the votes coming from plebiscites that hold the rich responsible for all federal and state taxes or outlaw home AND private education of any kind.


35 posted on 02/24/2012 3:41:33 PM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
And here I thought that the spewing of lies and deception was limited to the liberals. Who knew that the practice is well practiced within the belly of the pious?

************************

Hold on to your seat. This is just the beginning.

36 posted on 02/24/2012 3:43:09 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Newt Gingrich is proposing a Constituional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage.

No Spin, Just Fact.


37 posted on 02/24/2012 3:44:17 PM PST by conservativejoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The people of America have opened ‘Pandora’s box’, and we will suffer the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah...just a matter of time.


38 posted on 02/24/2012 3:44:31 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Yoooohooo fish, don't have a conniption because the latest Michigan poll shows Santorum behind.

Newt's views about this subject.

Gingrich pledges support for constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage

39 posted on 02/24/2012 3:44:47 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Easy, right is right, wrong is wrong. Either a person thinks gay marriage is right, or they think it is wrong.

Newt loses here because he misses the fact that the whole point of gay marriage is to force religions to marry queers or be punished.

This is the Newt problem. His principles are weak.


40 posted on 02/24/2012 3:45:16 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Very inflammatory “headline” and it is a lie.
41 posted on 02/24/2012 3:46:26 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes
They guy is mad because of this up-to-date poll posted in Breaking News:

Michigan GOP Primary: Romney 40%, Santorum 34%

42 posted on 02/24/2012 3:50:51 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

It will get overturned just as an isotope is inherently unstable.

Interesting we live in an age of nuclear bombs held by leftists accross the world...


43 posted on 02/24/2012 3:52:17 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dforest

Indeed, his marriage rate indicates he has a puppy dog syndrome with returning wagging tails to bad women.


44 posted on 02/24/2012 3:54:30 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

Gingrich to gay man: Vote for Obama
Posted by
CNN’s Shawna Shepherd and Ashley Killough
(CNN) - Asked how he plans to engage the gay community in his bid for president, Newt Gingrich on Tuesday told a voter he wouldn’t be the right choice for those basing their decision on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“If that’s the most important (issue) to you, then you should be for Obama,” Gingrich told Scott Arnold, a man who identified himself as gay.

“Okay. I am, but thank you,” Arnold replied.

The comment ended a rather cordial exchange between the two at a campaign stop in Oskaloosa, Iowa.

Arnold, an adjunct professor at William Penn University, approached the former speaker, asking Gingrich how he would sway voters who disagreed with him on same-sex marriage.

“How do you plan to engage and get the hope of gay Americans and those who support them?” Arnold asked.

Gingrich replied saying he doesn’t expect to get the backing from voters solely focused on changing the definition of marriage.

“And I accept that that’s a reality,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich has frequently taken a conservative line on the issue. Last week, he signed a pledge with the National Organization for Marriage, promising, among many things, to back a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman.

“On the other hand, for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their life –if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large-then I think I’ll get their support,” Gingrich said.


45 posted on 02/24/2012 3:54:30 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Newt for homo marriage? He’s Toast.


46 posted on 02/24/2012 3:56:21 PM PST by makomako
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: makomako

I wouldn’t rely on smelly fish’s BS headline.


47 posted on 02/24/2012 4:00:47 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

That’s the headline of the Wall St. J? So now you blame the messenger?


48 posted on 02/24/2012 4:00:47 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

This was a rather remarkable exchange. I cant post videos but for those who want to see an honest politician for a change, just google Gingrich gay man Obama. It is very refreshing and enlightening.


49 posted on 02/24/2012 4:01:45 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: makomako

If you know how to read, please see my post #45


50 posted on 02/24/2012 4:03:22 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson