Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Like Chernobyl , but with freepers. Major meltdown over "Newt OK with gay marriage referenda" thread
The thread:
Newt OK with gay marriage referenda
politico.com ^ | 2/24/12 | ALEXANDER BURNS
Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:51:04 AM 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.
politico.com ^ | 2/24/12 | ALEXANDER BURNS
Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:51:04 AM 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.
Freeps respond:
To: VU4G10
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.
2 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:55:27 AM by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
***
To: VU4G10
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.
4 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:03:52 AM by NKP_Vet (creep.)
***
To: VU4G10
That is not at all what he said you lying assholes...I hate romney..
6 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:04:48 AM by richardtavor
***
To: VU4G10
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.
14 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:22:22 AM by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
***
To: VU4G10
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...
21 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:59:11 AM by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
***
To: VU4G10
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.
25 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:15:40 AM by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
***
To: cotton1706
They can pass a thousand laws and it willnot change the way most people look at freak “marriages”.
27 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:28:48 AM by Venturer
***
To: VU4G10
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.
34 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:12:47 AM by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
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.
2 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:55:27 AM by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
***
To: VU4G10
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.
4 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:03:52 AM by NKP_Vet (creep.)
***
To: VU4G10
That is not at all what he said you lying assholes...I hate romney..
6 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:04:48 AM by richardtavor
***
To: VU4G10
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.
14 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:22:22 AM by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
***
To: VU4G10
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...
21 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:59:11 AM by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
***
To: VU4G10
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.
25 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:15:40 AM by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
***
To: cotton1706
They can pass a thousand laws and it willnot change the way most people look at freak “marriages”.
27 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:28:48 AM by Venturer
***
To: VU4G10
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.
34 posted on Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:12:47 AM by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
