E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Newt Gingrich says he does not object to states passing legislation allowing for same-sex marriage as legislatures are “doing it the right way.”
Asked by a local reporter about legislation passed here in Washington state, as well as Maryland, permitting same-sex marriage, Gingrich 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."
But the former House speaker added, “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."
This stance stems from Gingrich’s belief that the 10th Amendment grants the authority for such decisions to the states, not the federal government.
These remarks come just one day after the Maryland State Senate passed a bill allowing for same-sex marriage; it now awaits the governor’s signature. Washington State’s governor signed similar legislation into law last week.
These two new laws will likely bring the total number of states permitting same-sex couples to marry to eight, plus the District of Columbia.
But will Gingrich’s comments potentially come back to haunt him?
Last summer, Rick Perry was criticized for saying states passing same-sex marriage was “fine with me.”
Perry then clarified his stance during an interview with the Family Research Council in late July before he officially entered the race for president.
"I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me,' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed," Perry said.
Leave a Comment:
I've never fully understood comodities markets, but I keep seeing things about 'pork bellies'.
Now, I'm not completely sure what those are, or exactly what their importance is, but why are they wanting to worry about judges and gays getting married??
We've missed you DBO; especially that humor on Fridays!
Ditto what Jody said... Buzz!
You're malt shop tramp hasn't been the same without ya! ;o)
DBO,
It's because the pork-bellies were so settled in their relationships with each other!
What Gingrich and anyone who is against gay marriage fails to realize is that the right to be married to whatever consenting adult you want already exists. What the various states (and the f%$#@#g idiots in Congress) have done (illegally) is to take that right away from people.
Anytime you take a right away from someone, it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The SCOTUS pointed out long ago, the right to marry is a fundamental right that no goverment may deny.
Anytime a government restores a RIGHT which has been wrongfully withheld that is a good thing, regradless of whether it is the courts or the legislature which does it.
BTW, if Newts such a great historian, he would know that under our system of government, the judiciary is equal to the legislative and the executive branches. He forgets that because when he was speaker of the House, he thought he could dictate laws to the Executive branch. When the country blamed him for shutting down the government, his own party threw him out of office.
There is no "right" to be married. It is a priviledge bestowed by Churches. Homosexuals have civil unions for their purposes.
Churches co-opted marriages from civilizations that predate Christianity. Churches do not have exclusive ownership of marriage. Marriage is a state function that churches are allowed to utilize.
Gingrich wrong again .. marriage is a civil rights issue .. the states need to keep out of civil rights and allow the courts and congress to decide these issues .. Kinda like women being allowed to vote or school prayer .. or abortion ...
Wow, you are so funny Dbo, I can't stop laughing.
Mesa,
You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a contractual property agreement, originally between a male and the male guardian of a female, predating all organized religions.
That's why any two people can be married, without ever having stepped foot in a church.
Additionally, SCOTUS has ruled it a civil right 14 times, and it also includes the civil rights of privacy, equal protection, and freedom of religion.
dirp: You ask "if Newt's such a great historian" etc. Well, he was denied tenure at West Georgia College (not exactly the Harvard of the South) for lack of scholarly production.
The obvious rebuttal to Gingrich is if legislatures truly did it the right way, there would be no need for judges to step in...
I thought the problem with gay marriage is they don't do it “ the right way.”
I thought the GOP want the Gay Marriage Laws left up to the voters? According to Christie Kreme that's the "right way".
Newt needs to get back on the same page as the rest of the GOTP.
Repubs keep changing their message: When California's legislature passed gay marriage, Arnold said it should be decided in court!
Translation:
It's fine with me as long as they pass legislation prohibiting same sex marriage.
You know, my wife and I get along great. In 23 1/2 years I can honestly count the number of heated arguments we've had on three fingers. It's been a lot of fun and I love her more than ever. As long as there is respect and love in a relationship, I don't care who you have it with. I would never stand in the way of any ones happiness.
Bet Newt thinks like Governor Christie did at first (until he had to back track) that Civil Rights in the South should have been by referendum.
Thought Newt was supposed to be brilliant. Uhh, Newt, the only time judges get involved is when someone or a group files a suit to either overturn a legislatively passed rule in favor of gay marriage, when voters pass an anti-gay referendum as in California and Maine after the legislatures passed a gay marriage law, or as in Iowa, a suit which claimed that the Marriage Act in Iowa (between a man and a woman) was unconstitutional.
Oh those activist judges! That Newt! He will say anything to pander towards the GOTP base...
Newt is what Teapublicans THINK a Smart man sounds like . Nothing more .
So Newt is against DOMA, that federal mandate. Whoda thunk?
So Newt is against DOMA, that federal mandate. Whoda thunk? Apologies for double post, the newsvine bubblegum gremlin is out again today.
Where did Newt say he was against the DOMA? He said that same sex marriages should be left up to the states and not the federal government.
It's my understanding that DOMA only states that the individual states do not have to accept same sex marriages performed in other states. It further states the the federal government can not permit same sex marriages the same benefits and rights of marriages between and man and woman.
President Obama, in a debate in 2008, stated he does not believe same sex marriages should be permitted and he would defend the DOMA. Last year he changed his mind and said he, his administration would not defend DOMA in Federal Court. The House has agreed to the defend the Law in Court. I believe a judge in CA just ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional and now it will work its way up to the Supreme Court.
IMO, I would say that the Defense of Marriage Act will be over turned by the courts, or appealed through legislation within the next two years, if not sooner.
Pres Obama is against gay marriage. That's the right stance.
So what's your take on blacks being married to one another or interracial marriage--you do know America has a history of being against those. Presidents also said they were against those.
Where they right?
I do believe that Gingrich now owns the yawn factor.
Newt, here in WA State? Claiming that the liberals are doing something right?
He's really reaching isn't he...... (yawn)
Ya, and he's appearing at the Best Western in Federal Way - now that's funny!
Translation: "Checks and Balances are good only if I agree with them."
So remember, all you judges who believe in overturning a ban on gay marriage because you believe it doesn't grant equal protection under law, Newton says that's wrong.
(Oh, and you'll probably be arrested because Newton says he'll do that if he disagrees with your decision.)
That is exactly why we need conservative judges sitting on the bench so we don't have to worry about that.
Any opinion Newt expresses on marriage is, on its face, absurd.
News flash America! "Nutty Newt" has escaped from the Mental Hospital. Again! He is currently off his many very powerful medications, and has been acting up during group therapy sessions. Again! Some people have seen "Nutty Newt" riding a "Politically Crippled" GOP Elephant going off the "Cliff Of Intolerance." His doctors are very concerned about "Nutty Newt," because he is still trying to find his Death Star.
Newter has a fundamental problem in that he does not understand that the Independent Judicial Branch was established in our Constitution to prevent tyranny by the majority.
Just because a majority votes for something, or is in favor of something (i.e. Jim Crow laws in the South), doesn't mean it is right or constitutional.
His concept that the Judicial system should be subservient to the Legislative Branch would gut the US constitution.
The ignorant as dirt Republican base is not going to be happy with Newt. They want gay marriage outlawed everywhere regardless of what the people or their elected representatives may want. And if it takes the all powerful federal government to enforce such a ban, then these limited government nut jobs are enthusiastically in favor of it.
The last thing this country needs is for the government to legitimize homosexual marriage.
The last thing this country needs are homophobic heterosexuals.
The last thing we need is intolerant heterophobes who want taliban restrictions on thought they don't agree with.
Oops, I accidentally pushed vote up on 13.2. I was reading too fast and thought it said intolerant homophobes (which would make the sentence make sense).
And while I'd like to take that like back I can't, so I'll just say that your comment makes no reference to reality as no-one is trying to put any kind of restrictions on heterosexuals.
If you are a racial bigot, allowing interracial marriage does not restrict your your right to maintain your bigoted thoughts. Don't like interracial marriage, don't marry outside your race. Same applies to gay marriage, it doesn't stop you from thinking your homophobic thoughts. Hate gay marriage, don't marry someone from your own sex.
Well, if we leave everthing up to the voters, why do we need "judges" Newt? Let's get rid of the legislative branch then. Leaving decisions up to the states will create an environment like the tribal mess in Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, etc.....
Wounder what his gay sister thinks ?
BLAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!
Wrong, Newton. The founding fathers knew that legislatures, and the voting 'majority' (i.e. through the 'referendum' process) would often vote against the rights of the minority. This is why there is co-equal power shared between the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy, or a Republic, for a reason.
And you call yourself a historian, Newton? You get an 'F' in American history, Newton.
Really Gingrich, I gave money to your campaign but no more and the next time you will be speaking I will make sure I turn you off as you have turned me off.
Ron Paul is the one that should be elected not any of the other bums running.
Also a footnote for those of you using facebook and do not want your comment post to facebook read on.
All check your account setting at the top right hand corner of your screen. Those of you that are facebook members ought to know MSNBC automatically puts a check in a block that they will be posting what you are writing to your facebook.
Why this is another way they can castigate you. When you speak out against the MASTERS, they serve. Obama is their biggest fan club.
Get real MSNBC you are nothing but foraging pigs for Obama.
Is newt the guy we want to consult on marriage any kind of marriage?
More of the GOP "states" rights... block grants.. call it what you will. We fought that battle in the 1860's and it was called the Civil War. The South will always be an area of bigots (Nixon Southern Strategy) and they are what they are. Bigots..... You can see this from the idea of Health Care block grants. Look at the poorest states (but then also look at who "suck's from the federal breast the most)... seems they are directly related.
The KKK and democrats have been in bed since 1860.
Gingrich, Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Need i say more?
My uncomforatbility factor as regards Stste's rights come directly because of what happened in WI, has happened in AZ and is happening in Indiana. I see the deviousness behind their view.
Flip-FLOP! In 2000 a decision by a radically right-wing Supreme Court to steal an election ( coup d'etat ).
In 2012, on the progressive, civil rights issue of gay marriage judicial decisions are suddenly BAD, BAD, BAD!
Well, I'm thinking that some of you are missing the point of his comment (Newts). The Washington State Legislature, consisting of and representing the People of the State of Washington, have decided that it is time for the People of Washington to decide this issue. The matter will be brought up in November for us to vote on. But it is not some unelected federal union member that kissed the right ass to be given a lifetime appointment to a federal job to interperate how it is you, me and everyone else is gonna live and act. Power to the People, not the federal union members. The People will speak, personally, I hope the measure passes as I will be voting in support of it. Who I am to tell you how you will, shall, must, can't do it any otherway to live your life as, but, by the same token, who are you to tell me..... We are going to have to realize it's about individual rights. We all got em, we must all keep em, we must all defend the other persons RIGHT to live as he or she chooses. As long as you are not stomping on or taking away another persons individual rights, We should all be free to do as we wish, within, Our Local and State laws, determined by Us. I believe his point is the process in which Washington State is going forward. Don't hate the message because you don't like the messenger, he is on point. Now I sure he would like to see the measure fail, and that is a different issue all together.
And another person fails American History, and Civics 101.
'Federal union member'? Huh? Do you even know what you are talking about?
A most telling statement. The problem with the referendum process, as it pertains to individual rights, is that more often than not, the majority do the very thing that you have decried in your statement. The Judiciary branch is there, specifically to ensure that the majority, the Legislature, or the Executive does not ". . . [stomp] on or [take] away another persons[sic] individual rights . . ."
In other words, you have just argued against yourself. Nice job.
Any state can pass legislation prohibiting same sex marriage. They just need to be sure and have enough in their coffers to cover the lawsuits they are sure to lose.
The majority shall not deprive the minority of their rights. Forget religion, this is a civil right. It's in the U.S. Constitution and in every State Constitution that I have personally checked, which is most, and I will have checked them all soon.
Here we have Republicans wnating to have it both ways-it'sOK to vote for gay marraige; then it's alsoOk forthevoters to trump theUS Consititution.
Where are those republican these day who say th eConsitution stand for something? Every time they have a problem theydon't like they want to have referundum ot it.
Had that beenthe case inthe 1860's theywould have adopted Stephen Douglas's "popular sovergnity" idea. If a state wanted to have slaves that was fine-whatever else the consitution said.
Right were not rights-rights were right only if the majority siad so.
Both the Decalrationof independence and the Constitution sya the opposit . Rights are SELF evident. That is the exist apart whatever thexcurrent majority believes.
Rightst and by themselves. And goverments are created to protect them,not make them. And that why Grigich is dead wrong.
What happens if enthusia is put pn the ballot and ratified? Doe it now become a right? Once you start down that path you can get in deep unaniticipated trouble.