Well ...... VU4G10 ........ we're waiting? ......
Posted on 02/25/2012 5:51:04 AM PST by VU4G10
With same-sex marriage laws passing in Maryland and Washington state and New Jersey headed for a fall referendum on the issue, Newt Gingrich said at the Washington state capitol this morning that he's basically comfortable with states enacting gay marriage laws by popular vote. Ginger Gibson sends in the key 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This whole “gay marriage” thing is really just about money (i.e. scamming the employer). The only reason why queers want to get married is so that they can collect employee benefits for their fellow arse bandit. It’s nothing more than that...
They are not going to decide what their marriage law will be (unless they vote for gay marriage) a judge or two will decide what their marriage laws will be.
He knows that, you know that, I know that.
He's telling the people of Wash what they want to hear and it bears no relationship to the truth.
Newt isn’t pandering.
He made statements of fact.
Like them.
Hate them.
But facts are facts.
And the courts do what ever they like and Newt has had a lot to say about that.
Newt is supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. It was posted on FR yesterday, but the false accusations keep being made.
The argument will be: many states’ citizens voted to CONTINUE WITH SLAVERY in their own states.
It was found unconstitutional. The gays will say the states that vote no on gay marriage are denying them of their rights... and as such, it is unconstitutional.
It would have to be a constitutional amendment to say marriage is between one man and one woman. Nothing less will do.
If this goes through... next up, NAMBLA and the Mormans/polygamy.
My belief is that this issue is a financial issue and when the tax code is reflective of the individual rather than the structure of the family or their habits - deductions - this issue will go away. Deductions for adults, deductions for children, tax owed. Eliminate all the boxes that determine marital status or head of household status. As for benefits for family members carried on employer policies, this should be defined by the employer. Legal issues, such as medical decisions and rights to property should be handled as “life directives” through wills, living wills, estate planning, written agreements in the event of seperation, (the lawyers would love this), all of these ways to put the power and responsibility back into the hands of the individual. The subject needs to be changed back to the economy and the impact of excess and punitive taxation.
They can pass a thousand laws and it willnot change the way most people look at freak “marriages”.
You have to take his comment in full context and not read something into it by the headline. The Democrat controlled state capital passed gay marriage with the Governor signing it. We Washington voters are saying, “wait just one cotton picking minute, you can’t do that without us state citizens having a chance to have our say in a general election.” If enough signatures are gathered, gay marriage will be on the November ballot. If the voters say NO, the law is dead. It should be the citizens not Olympia deciding something as controversial as this. That is what Newt is saying, and you can bet at the Newt rally and any Republican rally, there will be plenty of signature gatherers.
Your conclusion that a Constitutional amendment will be necessary in order to define marriage is consistent w/Newt's view. He is on record as favoring that solution.
He was asked by the media to comment on the result of the referendum in Washington state; and, he concluded that the process was conducted in a legal and consistent manner w/our form of government. He also concluded that the process was superior to activist judges overruling the will of the people as has happened in the past. Again, those comments are stipulated as being observations on the process; not, on its result. He was also interviewed about this on Gretta last night and he specifically stated that he did not agree w/the result and personally would have voted against the referendum.
Newt's statements cannot be construed to mean he agrees with, or approves of, the result of the process. Newt has stated repeatedly that he defines marriage as specifically being between one man and one woman; and, that he favors a Constitutional amendment to that effect. He reiterated his position on marriage on Gretta last night.
I truly don't see how any fair minded person could logically conclude that Newt's statements regarding the Washington state referendum could be described as “pandering.” Take care, -Geoff
Gingrich actually said: “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.”
Restating your misstatements doesn’t bolster the claim.
Newt has stated the factual situation.
States have voted both against and for gay marriage.
If you believe in states rights under the 10th Amendment, and if there is no constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, this is how it is. These are the facts.
If you read the rest of this thread and step out of your personal echo chamber, you will see that he stated actual truth and his actual beliefs...against gay marriage as a concept but realizing certain state’s voters have voted for it.
That you would attack that and make misstated claims about his motives causes us to question your motives.
Rick Perry holds to exactly the same thing as Newt said, before he ever ran for president and after he got out and while he was running.
There’s no other rational way to look at it.
Read the thread.
Also, tell us how Santorum is going to stop the referenda in states, when he doesn’t agree with the outcome.
Do tell us.
I believe in a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
There isn’t one.
Those are the facts.
Like CW said, like ‘em, hate ‘em, facts are facts.
i guess you miss the part where newt also says he wants a constitutional amendment..so is he still right on states rights?
On small correction to your narrative....
Homo “marriage” in Washington state wasn’t legalized by referendum - it was enacted by legislative fiat in defiance of the expressed will of the voters.
We are attempting to organize a referendum to overthrow it. Given the strength of the dhimmicratic party here I doubt that it will ever reach the ballot.
That headline is a complete misrepresentation, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Instead of participating in lying attacks on Newt, I’d rather discuss the candidate who has an actual record of pandering to sodomites. Have you seen the little pink flyer distributed to homosexuals from Willard, wishing them a happy “Pride” day? Pride in what? Buggering?
Romney is a truly loathsome, slime-covered organism.
Flat out misinterpretation of what Newt said. Additionally, he pointed out that 70% of the voters are against gay marriage. So why not take it to the voters rather than liberal judges? This is clearly the best approach. He recognizes this rather than blah, blah blah from the other candidates. My heavens, this guy has ideas. Stop the madness.
Do you have an opinion on your own post?
Or are the other Freepers correct in thinking that you intended this as a “hit piece”?
I don’t know why you jerkoffs keep on with this like you have anything
Romney is basically in favor of the homosexual agenda
Newt has said publicly he opposes the homosexual agenda in total and those that want any of that should not vote for him.
Is that not clear enough for you.
Well ...... VU4G10 ........ we're waiting? ......
LOL
Yeah! What Catherine of Aragaon said! This is Pollutico. And Alexander Burns is a willard shill.
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.