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 guess you missed the part of the quote where Newt says he doesn't agree with it. Once again, he's putting the power in the hands of the voters - where it should be.

Newts right. Its not a constitutional issue, it is a states rights issue. The economic and social ramifications that may result will be on the shoulders of each individual state.

And how is this this “gotcha” question supposed to be answered? I guess he could have said “I don’t agree with it and if I were president and some state put it on the ballot and the people voted for it I would get on national TV and denounce the will of the people”. “I would then issue an executive decree saying that marriage is between a man and woman”. All hail King Newton.

The way Newt answered the question is right. He said he disagreed with it personally, but would accept the will of the people. Let me point out that in all 40 states where it has been voted on it has been defeated by the people. If the people ever pass it will be from a New England liberal state or California, Oregon or Washington. The later two states being overan in the last two decades by anti-God liberals from California. No Southern state (where people still actually go to church) will ever have this passed by the people.

The people have a right to decide what laws they will live under, either through their representatives in a legislature or by acting as a legislature themselves.

That is not at all what he said you lying assholes...I hate romney..

Actually, it is a Constitutional issue. You can’t have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others can’t, especially since you have the likelihood of a couple “marrying” in a pro- state and then moving to an anti- state and having it end up in the courts (thereby giving activist judges an excuse to force it on an anti- state). This should be a Constitutional Amendment and put a screeching halt to this absurd notion.

Tell us how you would stop the referenda for gay marriage.

Other states have had referenda and have voted no.

Rick Perry and Newt hold the same position. They are against gay marriage. They are pro states rights under the 10th amendment.

Therefore...

Tell us how Rick Santorum will stop states from voting on referenda if he disagrees with the way their voters vote on something.

Do tell us.

A constitutional amendment defining marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman would be the only way.

There isn’t one.

The referenda are going on NOW.

"not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will."

Only, of course, it the referendum supports gay marriage.

If the referendum opposes gay marriage, then we bring in a couple of judges to overturn the will of the people.

Newt is pandering here. He knows damn well where this will lead and should have the backbone to expose this charade.

Oh well, he needs votes to get back in the game and Wash. is a liberal state so............

There should be a consitutional amendment, but there isn’t one, is there?

So, yes you can have some states doing it and others not.

As bad as that is, you can have it, because you do have it.

You are misstating what’s going on here.

The question is, is it accidental, or on purpose.

At the very least this election should be 60% about the economy, oil prices / energy independence (ie drill our own), government overstepping our freedoms, US loss of its position in the world.

If the democrats want to make their major issue gay marriage it only proves to the American people that they are way out of touch with the rest of the country.

What good are issues such as gay marriage if the gay American people cannot afford the gasoline to drive themselves to the nearest Kadaffi-like clothing store to buy their flamboyancy?

This can’t be a Romney plant story. That waste-of-oxygen presided over the first legalization of homo-marriage in the country. Or, do you think they’re trying to say, “see Newt likes it too.”?

Newt was referring to the Constitution under the 10th Amendment, handing the power over to the States.

But you purposely left that out, since your intent was to mislead the forum into the assumption that your pure exalted candidate would legislate morality from the Executive Branch. And therefore save us all from eternal damnation.

you think Romney cares about the hypocracy?

he berated Santorum during the debate of NCLB... yet he supported it too.

he berated Santourm over voting for earmarks that he requested.

and now that Newt is showing a little life again, here come the articles on FR negative to Newt and all the little stealth Mitwits who jump on every anti-santorum or anti-newt thread and spread falsehoods about the two conservatives in the race to give their butt boy Romney a clear path to the nomination.

It makes me sick. I can see right through it.

I'm not misstating anything.

Isn't Wash. in the 9th circuit?

Didn't the 9th circuit just overturn Prop 8?

What makes you think that a vote for traditional marriage in Wash won't be overturned?

This is a condstitutional issued. Only an Ammendment to the constitution will stop this nonsense.

Referendums are a TOTAL waste of time, energy, and money.

Newt, being intellectually superior to the average bear, knows this; ergo he's pandering.

Until the Defense Of Marriage Act aka DOMA is struck down by the SCOTUS, traditional marriage states do not have to recognize homosexual "weddings" from other states.

Of course Obama already deemed DOMA “unconstitutional” guess he's the tenth judge, and is now breaking constitutional law by not defending the federal law in court...

...oh and Zero "says" he believes marriage is one man and one woman...lie # 64925486654.

He’s not “pandering,” whatever that may mean. To whom would he supposedly be “pandering?” The question deals with states’ rights and the activist judiciary.

One thing he should have gone on to mention is that even states which have rejected “gay marriage” through referenda are now having the judges overturn these laws because they, the judges, don’t agree with them.

its a states rights issue.

but lets think about it.....I dont think any government, local, state, or federal, should be in the marriage business.

eliminate the current income tax system and have a flat tax and let people sign up anyone they want to as their partner for legal purposes ....and let the individual and their church or whatever belief system they may or may not have perform marriages....if that is what they want.

But I’ll NEVER understand how you can say killing living human beings who can’t defend themselves is okay. It just doesn’t compute.