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

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich Live on Mike Gallagher to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage 9:30 AM ET
The Mike Gallagher Show ^ | 5/10/2012 | Mike Gallagher

Posted on 05/10/2012 6:24:08 AM PDT by JediJones

He said Newt Gingrich would be on around 9:30 AM ET. It's 9:23 AM now.

You can listen live on this station:

http://www.wntp.com/

Here is Mike's official site:

http://www.mikeonline.com/


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barackobama; mikegallagher; newtgingrich; obama

1 posted on 05/10/2012 6:24:14 AM PDT by JediJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Christians are going to have less and less respect for the “state” if this depravity continues. What next, you can marry a third spouse and you can all be on the insurance together?


2 posted on 05/10/2012 6:27:33 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Will be checking it out online. THANKS for the tip.


3 posted on 05/10/2012 6:28:39 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (The FR - Commandante Hugo Chavez Death BETTING POOL is now officially ON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

Gallagher just said Newt’s coming on after the 9:30 AM ET break, in about 5 minutes.


4 posted on 05/10/2012 6:29:41 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Got it running right now. Thanks! You think they might take call-ins at all? Probably not.....


5 posted on 05/10/2012 6:32:21 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (The FR - Commandante Hugo Chavez Death BETTING POOL is now officially ON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Thanks for posting...listening to Newt, now.


6 posted on 05/10/2012 6:36:35 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

I’m glad Newt said Biden’s remarks were a planned trial balloon and not any kind of an “accident” like too many people are buying. Not a big deal but people need to be aware of how relentlessly they’re being manipulated by political messaging and the media.

Newt also discussed the campaign and said keeping up with the schedule was like being a professional athlete. He said he realizes how exhausting it was once he got back home and was able to relax. He said he’s still not sure how he would have combatted Romney’s attack machine in Florida or what he could have done differently there.


7 posted on 05/10/2012 7:08:33 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

What did he say?


8 posted on 05/10/2012 7:08:55 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Yes, that’s exactly what’s next, polygamy and the new gay “polyamory”.

The goal of the gay activists has been to establish the concept of homosexual marriage. Then, once monogamous homosexual marriage has been established, then the goal is to move on to polygamy and group marriage. The polyamorous group marriages will consist of any number of partner, and any gender combination of partners. Then, some years from now, we will see lawsuits to force legal recognition of these new bizarre “family” formations. And the reasoning will be the same liberal claptrap as we have seen on homosexual marriage, namely, that it’s “discriminatory” not to recognize whatever strange combination of people claim to be “married” to each other.

And, depending on how many liberal judges are in the judiciary, this movement beyond monogamous homosexual marriage will gain steam.


9 posted on 05/10/2012 7:11:10 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

And then elimination of laws against incest. Can inter-species marriage be far behind?


10 posted on 05/10/2012 7:12:42 AM PDT by Jane Austen (Boycott the Philadelphia Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Well...Romney...and all...well...maybe that’s next.


11 posted on 05/10/2012 7:15:27 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

I see nothing to discuss.

The King James Bible

Lev 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


12 posted on 05/10/2012 7:15:29 AM PDT by Bailee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

and the next step after that is authorizing “marriage” with a horse


13 posted on 05/10/2012 7:16:49 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Obviously, polygamy would get a big boost if Romney became president.


14 posted on 05/10/2012 7:16:51 AM PDT by Tau Food (I am not a Romney Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Wow. Are you theorizing the future or do you know this to be true?


15 posted on 05/10/2012 7:18:40 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen
Can inter-species marriage be far behind?

Someone just posted a pic of James Carville, so yes, reptile/human marriage is already here.

16 posted on 05/10/2012 7:19:16 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (When we cease to be good we'll cease to be great. Be for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

I’ve read some of the gay literature on the subject. The eventual goal is group marriage, any number and gender of partners.

I hope to be wrong about this actually coming to pass, but they are going to push for it.

It might seem far fetched, but ask yourself — 20 years ago, would you have ever dreamed that we would have legal homosexual marriage, and, would you have dreamed that how we define marriage would be a “hot button” social issue?

Would you have dreamed that you would be called a bigot if you think that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman?

These things may well happen. It all depends how many liberal judges we have, and how hard the liberals push the issue.


17 posted on 05/10/2012 7:25:43 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Newt Gingrich Live on Mike Gallagher to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage

I didn't even know they were dating! ;)

18 posted on 05/10/2012 7:26:04 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bailee

The problem is that a portion of the US does not give a beep about what the KJ or any other version of the Bible says.

It’s important that we ALSO approach our opposition to homosexual with this: children should be raised by a father AND a mother. Legalizing homosexual marriage would mean the State would CONDONE that a child be motherless or fatherless.


19 posted on 05/10/2012 7:43:53 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; JediJones

Newt finds it interesting that Bammy comes out right after the NC vote to support gay marriage. He doesn’t think it has anything at all to do with Biden - that Biden was just a trial balloon (see post #7). Newt thinks it has more to do with the hard left’s pressure (they were withholding $$) - and this was their last straw. He thinks the left was very shaken by the NC victory.


20 posted on 05/10/2012 7:46:39 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bailee

if that is all you have then you have conceeded the debate.

The debate hinges on NON-religious arguments. They may guide you in your non-religious reasoning but ANYTHING religious conceeds the debate and victory to the homosexual advocates.

It has to be based on the fact that homosexual conduct is a behavior, NOT an imutable trait.

It has to be based on the fact that society rewards the institution not the individual (or their recreational mating conduct)

It has to be based on the fact that ALL children have one mother and one father and no amount of hiding behind that fact can change it any more than trying to legislate the value of pi.

It has to be based on the fact that marriage has no “love test” under the law. Members of society have always been able to marry a member of the opposit sex. all equal.

This is coupled with the homosexual lawyer who admitted on msnbc that only a very small amount of homosexuals are even interested in any form of marriage.

This debate should also include the ridiculously low life expectancy of homosexuals.

If all that is used in an intelectual debate is “faith” then faith without facts means defeat.


21 posted on 05/10/2012 7:56:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

Thanks for the report.

I learned about the interview right as it was ending.

I agree with Newt. It wasn’t Biden, it was the overall political situation.

Mark Levin said Obama is writing off the Reagan Democrat types who would turn out against homosexual marriage, and he’s decided to politically cast his lot with their opposite numbers.

More suburban, more affluent, more educated, less religious.

The pro traditional marriage voters are the so called bitter clingers, clinging to their guns and their bibles and with antipathy toward those who aren’t like them, as O described it.

Make no mistake, the WV dem primary vote was another wake up call, even though that issue wasn’t on any WV ballot. Obama couldn’t crack 60% in WV because of a Texas prison inmate’s name on the ballot drawing enough votes to deny him that.

And the jailbird actually won 10 counties in WV just by dems protest voting against O.

Levin also said the Wisconsin situation scares the dems that their union footsoldiers...the rank and file...aren’t going to deliver for them.

So they are casting about for ANY combination that can win them re-election.

They need tons of money and they need activist foot soldiers in the campaign.

They can get that from the militantly homosexual groups.


22 posted on 05/10/2012 8:02:07 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Reddy

It should also be pointed out that normalizing same-sex marriage means this is the “new normal” that children will have to be taught in all public schools. How are pre-pubescent children going to react when they’re told that when they grow up they can marry a boy or a girl, whichever they want? Is Johnny going to start thinking he should marry his friend Billy when they grow up? Are they going to start holding hands, exchanging valentines, hugging, kissing? Changing the definition of marriage has sweeping effects in society, it isn’t just something that affects those two particular people who can or cannot get married.


23 posted on 05/10/2012 8:06:16 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Not to mention the whole RNC/Romney plan was to target specifically those suburban, affluent, socially liberal voters in the hopes that their disappointment with the economy would sway them to Republicans. When the Republicans go moderate, Obama tries to hold onto those voters by going further left to distinguish himself. Which is why it’s so bad to allow the Republicans to go moderate. It makes the left even worse. And as Newt explained during his Congressional career, his goal was to move the goalposts in just the opposite direction so that every segment would be pushed further right. And he had some success pushing Clinton to the right.


24 posted on 05/10/2012 8:12:08 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Homosexuals HAVE to recruit children. It is all they have. Just look at the school in masachusetts with glsen. It is all about recruiting.

You bring up good points that ALL parents and especially single mothers should consider. Obama is willing to sell your children for a few dollars from hollyweird.


25 posted on 05/10/2012 8:15:09 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Reddy

if that is all you have then you have conceeded the debate.

The problem is that a portion of the US does not give a beep about what the KJ or any other version of the Bible says.


The only thing I conceed is this Country is gonna burn soon.

Jude 1:7

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


26 posted on 05/10/2012 8:34:50 AM PDT by Bailee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; JediJones

If Obama is willing to sell his own children, he won’t hestitate a nanosecond to sell yours.

He says Melia and Sasha helped convince him this is right.

To use them is to sell them, in this situation.


27 posted on 05/10/2012 8:37:57 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Unless you are perfectly, equally okay with your children being either heterosexual or homosexual, and have no preference whatsoever how they come out, you cannot be for same-sex marriage. Because the public schools will teach them that marriage is about marrying whatever gender they happen to love and it will be totally institutionalized in the school dances, proms, events, yearbooks, etc. There will no longer be any debate about whether the king and queen of the prom can be gay. By law, the courts will say that because same-sex marriage is legal, the schools cannot promote heterosexual relationships any more than homosexual relationships. Same-sex marriage will eventually, and probably quite quickly, totally institutionalize homosexuality on every level of the culture, government, education system, etc. And every child will be taught about it and encouraged to participate in it just as equally as they would a heterosexual relationship. Same-sex marriage is about far, far more than marriage. It’s about changing the society fundamentally which includes educating the children so that as many as possible come over to their side. The homosexuals know this and that is the real reason they are fighting so hard for same-sex marriage, not because they necessarily care about getting married. It’s about institutionalizing their lifestyle as a societal norm and increasing their numbers.


28 posted on 05/10/2012 8:44:51 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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