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...”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
The title is a misrepresentation of what Gingrich said.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hold on to your seat. This is just the beginning.
Newt Gingrich is proposing a Constituional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage.
No Spin, Just Fact.
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.
Newt's views about this subject.
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.
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...
Indeed, his marriage rate indicates he has a puppy dog syndrome with returning wagging tails to bad women.
Gingrich to gay man: Vote for Obama
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.
Newt for homo marriage? He’s Toast.
I wouldn’t rely on smelly fish’s BS headline.
That’s the headline of the Wall St. J? So now you blame the messenger?
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.
If you know how to read, please see my post #45