Posted on 02/24/2012 3:06:09 PM PST by Steelfish
“Who knew that the practice is well practiced within the belly of the pious?”
Well, Jesus sure knew it. I remember him having a few choice words to say to the overtly pious “moral police” of his day.
The behavioral and ethical resemblance to Romney supporters of old is striking.
“So now you blame the messenger?”
Well, you chose to post it, surely knowing it was misleading, with your own little condescending addition, in violation of FR practice, and also without the fairly obligatory “Barf Alert”, so, yeah, I’m blaming you. You can do better than this.
Amen Brother FReeper. Rush had a couple of meltdowns on his show today because he just can't move on from contraception and abortion, preaching to the choir on one hand (yeah, we got it and agree, Rush. Now what about the damned gas prices?) or if he was boiling mad at Romneybots, I don't know, but he ... seemed out there to me. It wasn't a matter of backing down -- he just couldn't let go. I felt kind of sorry for him. He's losin' it.
That's my kinda stuff!!! WELL SAID! *standing to cheer and shooting pistols into the ceiling*
That's right. People are responsible for their own moral behavior in a free and civil society. In any case, morality is beyond legislation's reach. The only way legislation can help is by upholding our right to live morally. It FAILS when anti-discrimination laws and activist judges take over and attempt to legislate morality by telling us how we must tolerate open homosexuality in our schools, our workplaces, our military, and even our kids' Boy Scout troops.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich in restoring States' rights.
He’s personally against Gay marriage, but, IF his state were to allow it, then he’s ok with that to ?
WHAT?
Can there be a referendum legalizing pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy, etc?
This is SERIOUSLY disturbing.
Pingout tomorrow.
The author of the article claimed Newt's words "suggested" he was "OK" with it.
Newt said no such thing: "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."
You see there is never a “right way’ to legitimize an evil. To think, that you could find shelter in the democratic process suffers from a serious philosophical misunderstanding of natural law that goes back to the debates on slavery. In the states, judges too are part of the electoral process where judges are periodically subject to voter approval. To say that there are rogues judges is something we all know.
But the liberals and socialists will tell you that matters of interpretation, even when they are absurd, are part of constitutive government. Thus, when by 5/4, the SC struck down a GA statute and decreed that adult homosexuality cannot be criminalized and is in the nature of constitutional right of privacy, it was an outlandish decision. But the courts are entrusted with the “power” to do just that and this includes a wrong interpretation of statutes.
The fact that one stems from judicial power and the other from people power assumes that judicial power is not derived form the people. This is a wrong assumption. Neither judicial power or legislative power can ever, at least in the moral sense, legitimate an evil simply because one or other of the processes were used.
Perhaps Gingrich misspoke or he stated his belief in somewhat less than elegant terms but that is why he needs to clarify and correct this (mis)impression. To come down with fire-breathing rhetoric on the bearer of news printed in a reputable national publication undercuts your stand. Calling names like agent provocateur, and lashing out with invective simply confirms an underlying weakness in your posts.
People of unimpeachable conservative credentials like Rush and Mark Levin have said that Santorum is the “last true conservative standing.” This is not to sideline Gingrich but rather to admit the reality. Had it not been for Santorum’s Trifecta (OH,MN, MO), Romney would have had an unstoppable momentum. If Santorum fails to dislodge MI form Romney where he is the prohibitive favorite, Romney regains his momentum. Yet some of the ardent fans of Gingrich appear to have a morbid sense of delight that Santorum lost last Tuesday’s debate to Romney.
This election is not a cult of the personality. If Gingrich was in Santorum’s position, rest assured that many of us wolud have demanded Santorum to quit. But we cannot continue to bury our head in the sands. It’s no small coincidence that several conservative writers in National Review, the American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard have asked Gingrich to withdraw. These folks are not malicious individuals nor are they rooting for Romney.
My previous posts were not to “bash” Gingrich but news articles explaining that his $1.6m FreddieMac was an albatross he finds difficult to shake off or calling Paul Ryan’s seminal entitlement reform plan as “right wing social engineering.” Gingrich has a way of feeding into the narrative than he is “unstable” and “explosive” like his ideas for permanent moon-based colonies at a time of $16T national debt. Romney exploited all this so well that in FL, Gingrich got thrashed in every key demographic -single female whites, among all women, Tea Partiers, Cuban-Americans, Hispanics, 18-29 year old, and white males.
When Santorum flounders like in a debate performance, we hear gleeful hallelujahs from the Gingrich crowd but any threads exposing the dim prospects of Gingrich capturing the nomination at this stage of the game, or revealing his morally implausible comments like what was said about gay marriage in WA is somehow cause for shaking a hornets nest.
So feel free to argue, debate, and rebut but keep things in perspective and next Tuesday we’ll have more to say and so would Gingrich and Santorum.
Sometimes the results we get after people have voted is that their votes are over turned by some judge.
There's never a "right way" to bear false witness, either, brother.
You accused me of putting words in your mouth, but that is exactly what you are doing with Gingrich.
Here's the full quote: "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"
I'll repeat myself again:
His comment was not an approval (Or legitimization) 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.
Typo correction : Many people who were once political friends, and even friends here on FR are now against each other.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know Gingrich is NOT for gay marriage. But he thinks that an evil (gay marriage) can be legitimated by the political process. Substitute slavery for gay marriage and see how this sounds. This is precisely why his statement made news in the Wall St. J. You need to take issue either with the writers of the Wall St. J article or have Gingrich retract what may have been a misimpression but don’t defend the indefensible.
I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me. But someone else being intellectually dishonest is no justification for doing so yourself. If you on the principled side, you've unfortunately got the harder end of that double standard.
So ? if Newt says that there is a " Right Way " to legalize Gay Marriage ? what does it mean then ?
It means pretty much what he said... at least they are raising the issue for the people to decide rather than forcing on people by judicial decree.
so Morally, even though he's against it, if a state were to legalize it the " Right Way " Newt has no problem with it ?
Clearly he has a problem with it, morally. He also has a problem with forcing such things on to people by judicial tyranny.
I don't mean to be evasive, but I simply was not involved. I don't doubt that distortions and deception are employed by all the camps.
Many people who were once political friends, and even friends here on FR are not against each other. It's like how it was during the Civil War when the North was against the South, state against state, brother against brother who thought that their view was right and they had the higher moral ground. It's going to take a move of God and miracle of God to bring people back together and heal wounds and help of face the real battle this fall in the general election.
Amen. ;o)
Please see response 117
He isn't "legitimating" gay marriage any more than he is advocating it. Claiming otherwise is distorting what he said... I think that is evil.
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.