No, he believes one process is right, and the other process is wrong. He made no moral argument whatsoever.
Like you said, substitute gay marriage in the quote and see how it sounds:
Asked at the state Capitol what he thought of states passing laws that [ANYTHING AT ALL, MORAL OR NOT], 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..."
Here's your progression:
"...he is OK with states legalizing gay marriage through popular vote"
"he now thinks there is a “right way” to legalize this rot."
"No one is so idiotic to say that Gingrich is for gay marriage. But to think that there is ever a “right way” to legitimize an “intrinsic evil” as the Catholic Catechism calls it, is something quite different."
Again, no one said “Gingrich” is legitimizing gay marriage. But his comments appear to confirm that he believes that gay marriage can be “legitimated” if people (rather than judges) vote for it.
Steelfish, you chose to make an intellectually dishonest attack on Newt Gingrich and you were called on it. You have retreated into the absurd in regards to redefining your position as it's been refuted.
Learn from it, and have the integrity not to open yourself up to it again. We'll all be on the same team soon enough, brother.
You write:
“No, he believes one process is right, and the other process is wrong. He made no moral argument whatsoever.”
And you cannot say (just like in slavery, incest, bigamy, polygamy, necrophilia) that either process is right in reference to something that is intrinsically evil. Such a position that seeks to straddle the issue is intellectually and morally deficient. But apparently, we must respectfully agree to disagree on this.