That is no way to pass rights for the minority, it’s tyranny through the majority. Sometimes peoples rights have to be given through the courts, like civil right. Majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but those people are wrong and have no right to tell people how they should live their lives.

Can we also put a referendum on the ballot that opposite-opposite sex marriages must produce children otherwise their marriages are to become null and void? Since marriages are for procreation.

Newt..It looks like you would have your last two marriages become null and void..or should we call it your marriages have been annulled. Since your second marriage was to someone about 32 years old, she was still in child bearing years. Your third wife would have still been of child rearing years before menopause caught up with her. Or were you using Birth Control methods such as condoms or having your wife take The Pill?

At least according to the “Testimony of the Men” before Daryl Issa even to the Lutheran hierarchy for your second marriage and the Catholic for your third marriage….Birth Control methods are forbidden. Or are you lying your ass of when you say you have a strong sex drive. From the lack of children from the last two marriages…I have come to the conclusion that you are a dud in bed. otherwise we’d see some offspring or are you shooting blanks? Don’t tell me that you had a vasectomy…Again that’s a big no~no.

***Can we also have a referendum in Texas to remove their cheap marriages? It’s a quirk in their laws all a man needs to do is introduce a woman three different times and they are husband & wife.

Why — so that the Mormon church can funnel millions of dollars into more deceptive and fear-based attack ads, like they did in California? This is not an appropriate way to consider the very serious issue of whether to extend a basic right to a minority group.

Agreed! Yet another reason why Religion is Full of FAIL. 

This is something where conservatives have to realize they’re on the wrong side of history. Some liberals can’t have it both ways either *COUGH* Obama *COUGH*. 

The fact is, with every passing year, more and more of us meet gay people in our lives. There is NO WAY with that trend, that you’re going to see people turn against those they see face-to-face on a regular basis. Not going to happen!

Obama is a hypocrite, however, I do think history will look upon his stance as “the best he could do for the climate” whereas many conservatives (R & D) will be remembered simply as being on the WRONG side of history.

Just like a “referendum” (the vote) will make sure you are never the R nominee.

Heck yeah, leaving decisions on minority rights up to the majority to decide will work out well, I mean, African Americans would have gotten equal rights in the south if it were put up for a vote, I’m sure, It’s not like you’ll see money flooding into the state from anti gay charities and extremist religious groups trying to spread propaganda and misinformation to make sure it doesn’t pass or anything.

Democracy – two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

No majority should be able to deprive a minority of a basic right that does no harm to the whole of society. 

I would vote no on a referendum asking whether Newt can get married again. 

 First – gay marriage,
  Next – polygamy, like Mitt’s grandfather,
     Then – GOATS and SHEEP!!!!

It is ironic that conservative Republicans
consider that  to allow committed gay
couples to marry, is a threat to marriage, but they will vote for New Gingrich.

Where is the basic right for gays to get married? In the Constitution?

Oh, so we shouldn’t have elections where a lot of money gets contributed to one side?

How do you like the idea of two brothers getting married? Would that be OK with you? If not, why not?

The modern Republican Party should change its name as they’ve strayed far from the principles of the founding fathers. Any suggestions for a new name?  The Grand Old White Party has devolved into the most ignorant and uninformed ilk, thanks to the echo chamber of Fox News/Talk Radio!
Republicanism is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States
Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

LOLZ – You just have to feel sorry for dolts like yerself!

this article does what so many do by relating ‘same sex marriage’ with ‘same sex unions’, thus generating unnecessary conflict. Civil unions would be acceptable to many but the charade of marriage with the traditional husband & wife nomenclature is simply foolish to many.

let’s use this to do away with the unpopular socialist form of health care shoved down our throats!

Newt’s gay?

you’ve got too much time (and too little thought) on your hands.

Uh, Obama’s moderate health insurance reform was based off plans by socialists like Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and the Heritage Foundation! It doesn’t include a socialist single payer system for Universal Coverage. Obama didn’t nationalize the hospitals or the healthcare or pharmaceutical industry. It also doesn’t force Americans to buy insurance from the Government, but from competing private insurance firms. The more in the insurance pool, the lower the cost. Have Conservatives been so stupid about everything, forever? Like I said above the Conservative Republican Grand Old White Tea Party has not been intellectually well served by the comfy powerful echo chambers of Fox News, Talk Radio, and Drudge! 

 Where is the basic right for ANYONE to marry?  It is legally a contract between two people.  At least to the law it is.

 Legally there is no need too.  Immediate family has all the same rights as a spouse.  BTW, isn’t ironic that it is legal in most states to marry a cousin?

There is a bigger problems I have with these referendums and it doesn’t matter if the referendum is for or against gay marriage or whether I agree with it or not. They are really unconstitutional and go against the structure the founders had.   We have never had a democracy, but a representative republic.   The founders knew that mob rule was just as bad as a dictatorship.  That’s why we have representatives and also why we have a senate.  It is a check and balance system that actually works pretty well.  The referendums are only for politicians who don’t want to take sides on an issue or be on the wrong side of history.  It is a way of metaphorically washing their hands of an issue so they don’t become a bad guy.

No. But his boyfriend is. 

You think that the Constitution provides an itemized list of all your rights?   You must have never even seen a copy of it.  What Country were you educated in?

MARRIAGE brings entitlements such as death benefits, lower tax rates, family insurance rates, etc.

It is discriminatory to provide entitlements based on sex. Get rid of entitlements for marriage, and the issue of gay marriage will go away.

Dems are certainly missing the boat with all this morality legislation that’s “ALL THE RAGE” with the Repugnant Party.With someone like NOOT the NITWIT, you spin it around on him and his multiple transgressions,and his Party.Let’s have a referendum on castration of wife cheaters or sterilization of husband cheaters.I suspect you’d hear crickets from the other side, since even the pitchfork toters/torch bearers would start looking around at each other.See,it’s perfectly FINE to allow referendums on subjects you don’t agree with, but HOLY HELL !!!! when that referendum starts pointing fingers at something immorally wrong but unfortunately societally accepted and something YOU MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN!!!!

Sorry,that’s what they typically refer to as HYPOCRISY!!! LMAO!!!!!!

The only dolts here are people who reply to questions like you.

As a matter of fact, I keep a copy of it within easy access. No, the Constitution doesn’t provide an itemized list of all our rights. It specifically states that the powers not allocated to the federal government are allocated to the states. So it’s up to each state to decide whether gay marriage is legal or not in that state. If it was a universal right a state couldn’t pass a law against it without it being declared unconstitutional.

Some good ole fashioned tyranny of the majority, just like the founding fathers wan… wait, forget that.

“It is discriminatory to provide entitlements based on sex.”

1. It would be much easier to just let same sex couples partake in a state contract then it would be to take away the institution as we know it.
2. Married people don’t have sex.

Do you walk to school,or carry your lunch?? WINK! I think we’ve found ourselves a WINNER, for certainly the most ignorant post to this article!!!!!

not on topic, but, your only the 2nd person I have come across that has used the walk to school line.  I  love that line.  Another good one is, Is it hotter in tha summer than it is in St. Louis?

I have been an avid supporter of Newt until now but he missed this issue big time. God
has not authorized man to reinvent marriage period. It stands as His fundamental
provision for the family. No law passed by any method or procedure to allow
same-sex marriage is valid in God’s eyes. Those who pass such laws bring God’s
wrath on their jurisdiction. At least if the people voted for it, they have no
one else to blame but themselves when they are visited by God’s wrath. Sin also
has its own build-in destructive force just like jumping from a high building
and subjecting oneself to the law of gravity. If this is Newt’s position, I
will be moving my support to Rick Santorum.

 SOCIALISTS!!!

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Gingrich (who was Speaker of
the House from 1995 to 1999) told host David Gregory that he continues
to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a
congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or
acquire health insurance. In fact, in a 1993 appearance on Meet the Press, Gingrich thoroughly expressed support for what is now a key Democrat policy position:
I am for people, individuals -— exactly like automobile insurance -—
individuals having health insurance and being required to have health
insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will
give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure
that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

 Please give me examples of being visited by God’s Wrath (from the Bible) that were due to homosexuality.

Let me ask a few questions please.  This really doesn’t pertain to the article, but rather the underlying root of the debate.

How would same sex marriage effect your rights to life, liberty, or property?  A good way to look at why there is a law against something, is that this something intrudes on the freedoms of another by fraud or force.  It is the basis of our laws since the beginning of time.  So again I ask, how does same sex marriage effect your life, liberty, or property? 

Let me answer some retorts…

1. It lessens the sanctity or destroys marriage. – That is a matter of opinion not fact.  As a matter of fact, the one act that actually destroys marriage is legal in this country.  Only one religion I know off actually punishes you if you get a divorce.  The rest frown on it, but give it a pass. I will also say no where in the constitution does it give the government the right (by use of force, deadly if necessary) to uphold traditions and ceremonies. 

2.  It could open the road to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, whatever the perversion de’jour is, to being legal – Uh no, because animals, children, or whatever are not protected by the constitution.  Most states will not allow a marriage to anyone below the age of 18 and sex with a minor (willing or not) is considered rape.  Children are somewhat considered property and have limited freedoms until they are 18.  The family thing is a different matter because immediate family has all the rights that a spouse does and it is still legal to marry a cousin in most states. So in other words, no it won’t.

3.  It is against my religious beliefs – That is true, however no one is forcing churches to marry same sex couples.  Religious institutions still have the right to marry who they choose.  For example, I cannot marry in a Catholic ceremony unless me and my fiance are both Catholic, confirmed, and have gone through the rituals before hand.  These will not change.  I could also use the example of some religions outlaw pork, but it is still legal to sell in the United States, but that is too easy.

There are your big three.  So please tell me, how does same sex marriage effect your rights to life, liberty and/or property?

Keep religion out of politics.

Or introduce a new word to the vernacular & official legal terms that describes same sex marriage & does not offend the sensibilities of the religious right, “garriage”. Garry & garried being verb & adjective respectively

Garriage should be afforded full benefits of marriage at the federal level except religious institutions are not obliged to perform garriage though should recognize it & legally honor it as a marital status

arriage works too with the SS part applying to both sides who seem to want to impose their well on the other side

Where is the right to free speech and bare arms?  That certainly isn’t in the constitution.  Those little bits had to be added after.

You sound as if “the courts” rule according to
some alien laws from another planet, and not laws instituted amongst men(which
include the so called majority and minority alike) to govern themselves as a
Republic.

FYI: If the same majority should decide to vote, or demand
that the be Constitution amended according to the laws they deem appropriate (in
line with Natural law), the same “courts” you speak about would be
bound under law to uphold that Constitution (and its amendments). Sometimes it
is utter ignorance to assume that “the courts” is some sort of
supreme legal authority which should override the will or consent of the
majority, EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY IS RIGHT. I don’t know if you understand
history, but the American Revolution itself had very significant opposition BY
AMERICANS, who preferred servitude to the British Monarchy, over Liberty and Self-governance.
“Democracy” itself has its huge flaws; however, what matters is not WHO is
right, but rather WHAT is right. William Penn (1644 – 1718) once said that: “Right
is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone
is for it.” I couldn’t agree more with him.

Nature and Natural law affirms that two human species of
“opposite sex” are REQUIRED, in order to for mankind to “exist (and
continue existing)”on the Earth. Ancient and modern science and technology
has not, and will never be able to dispute this.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality in the human species
both exist; however, only one (the former) of them is considered
“normal” according to Nature itself as stated above. Any argument or social
theory otherwise, would be the antithesis of Nature and its laws. Both science
and medicine have reached a conclusion that sexual orientation is a complex
interplay of biological and environmental factors. Major studies have shown
that somewhere between 2% to 11% of the population in modern western
civilization is homosexual; or will have some sort of same-sex tendencies
during their lifetime. Studies have also shown that it is in fact a
“choice” for some humans; Cynthia Nixon having she spent 15 years and
had two children with a man, innocently admitted four weeks ago that: “I
understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you
don’t get to define my gayness for me,”. Nixon was viciously attacked by
gay-rights activists, despite the fact that she is engaged to a woman with whom
she has been in a relationship for eight good years. This shows that gay rights
activists will not only viciously attack heterosexuals and call them bigots,
homophobes; but they will also attack even gay people in a vile manner, if
anything goes contrary to their political narrative. http://yhoo.it/zRpmS5

You can continue being politically correct and argue from
now till forever; but you still won’t be able to dispute nature, which dictates
that two human species of “opposite sex” are required for the human
race to exist.

————–

“but those people are wrong and have no right to
tell people how they should live their lives”

————–

How were people living their lives before the 60s, 70s
and 80s, during which left-wing progressives began realizing how politically
valuable it was to transform gays in the society into a significant demographic
of the electorate, for what is now known as the “gay vote”?? Personally
I believe homosexuality (or ‘sodomy’ as it was known then) should NEVER have
been a crime under common law, although in 1786, Pennsylvania was the first
state to repeal the death penalty for “sodomy”, and other colonies followed
suit, and eventually the absolute decriminalization of homosexuality itself
began in 1961 in the state of Illinois. Under Common law, that was a very good
thing for them to do.

Actually there are far worse things that affect how
people ‘should live their lives’ i.e. speaking of liberty, than changing the
definition of “marriage” to accommodate gay couples; but
unfortunately lots of those things are not given any coverage whatsoever, due
to the fact that no political expediency exists with those issues, as there is
with the “gay vote”.

It is quite interesting to see how left-wing lunatics (some
on this website too) throw the terms such as ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobic’ like
little children, especially when they don’t have any logical argument to bring
to the debate. Even Cynthia Nixon who is one of theirs got a taste of their own
medicine, and she learned the hard way that you dare not have a
“personal” view which happens to be contrary to the adopted political
narrative by progressives. I mean these gay-rights activists preach freedom and
diversity of opinion, yet they viciously try to censor an individual for expressing
her opinion about HER OWN sexuality? This is a general pattern with those on
the left, and according to left-wing activists, one can actually be gay and be
a bigot/homophobic, the same way they tried to convince people that Herman Cain
was “racist” against Obama…LOL(now that was really imbecilic and
funny back then).

PS: Speaking of political expediency with social issues;
haven’t you guys noticed that the cry of “racism” now happens to be DISPROPORTIONATELY
carried out by left-wing “Caucasians”, far more than we blacks who are the ones
affected by it WHERE IT ACTUALLY EXISTS?? If you haven’t noticed this yet, you
should pay more attention to the left-wing media and politicians who are NOT
black. I am 100% black, but I think it is quite pathetic for someone (white
people in this case) to take medications for our own headache, because it
benefits them politically to do so. If I have a headache, I should be the one
to take an aspirin myself; you should take it on my behalf. Besides, the Thirteenth
Amendment was implemented about one hundred and fifty years ago to abolish
slavery; the Civil Rights Act was enacted half a century ago; the only “systems”
now in place are those that were cleverly orchestrated by elite progressives on
the left, to make minorities subservient to them, while requiring their votes
in return to keep them in public office. The social engineering has its grip on
roughly 93% of minorities (Negros and Hispanics especially) who don’t know how
to think and act for themselves as individuals. My family of 6 is part of the
7%. Ironically, Slavery and Jim Crow Laws were actually set up by Democrats on
the south, who even fought a civil war to keep it; but many decades later they
now reap fruits over the ignorance of minorities.

LOL!

Wow, just wow, thought I’d slip over here before bed, and read your post. This is the best I’ve read in ages…thank you.

Think he will reply? Not anything to refute in my estimation.

Tina

typical “Liberal’ open mind.

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed – Genesis 19; Romans 1:18-32 – AIDS is one obvious example

That can’t be done. Laws and ethics are based on moral values as is religion. Atheism and agnosticism are also regarded as religions. You can’t have a values-neutral society. For instance, our Declaration of Independence states that there are self-evident truths and that our Creator has given us inalienable rights with the right to life being the primary right that good government should protect. The Holy Bible and Blackstone’s Commentaries formed the basis of the laws of the Founding Fathers in America.

Regards,

Lighthouse3

Except that civil unions are a red herring. They do not and never have provided the same benefits as marriage.

There’s nothing “socialist” about the health care law. It would be a much better law if it was socialist.

No, he’s just a serial adulterer.

Actually, as of now the majority of Americans support gay marriage.

I’m sure Newton wanted desegregation and interracial marriage to be put up to a referendum as well.

And we all know how that would’ve turned out.

Yep.

Civil unions. ..relatively easily done, we’re talking about the simple matter of defining the law.

“Ironically, Slavery and Jim Crow Laws were actually set up by Democrats on the south, who even fought a civil war to keep it; but many decades later they now reap fruits over the ignorance of minorities.”

It’s also quite ironic that your ignorance prevents you from realizing that the Civil Rights Act(s) that were designed to combat Jim Crow laws were the exact reason southern conservatives fled the Democratic party in droves in the 1960s, choosing the GOP instead.  How can you have logic and reason when you lack basic nuance? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrat

Fortunately for me, I don’t need you or Wikipedia to tell me about my own history. I know more about Slavery, Racism and Racial Segregation than you’ll ever dream of knowing.

Mr. DOE,

I have little or no respect for “DRINK BEER.”  However, your above, lengthy comment not withstanding, I am intrigued by how you “know more about Slavery, Racism and Racial Segregation than you will ever dream of knowing?”  That is a bold statement you’ve made.  

Does such mean that you were once held in involuntary servitude, indentured or in bondage yourself?  Or, could such mean that YOU were once the oppressor and as sure as the Roman Tax collector Saul, became Paul, you now claim a confident and unique wisdom… but, “risk becoming the very monster, you pursue”
The Purveyor of Rhetoric

Well, I guess that’s that!  If Brian has made THE definitive conclusion…  Ouch!

I will hope and/or concede Brian, that you mean well, but, lack thorough knowledge on the subject of due process, specifically, “procedural” due process.

By the way, I agree with your conclusion, just NOT how you arrived at it.

Purveyor

I didn’t notice it, but the phrase “immutable differences” would have been appropriate when delineating racial versus sexual, civil liberties?

Note: Years ago I did a paper for Federal Judge that asserted Brown v. Board of Education was incorrectly decided, ‘procedurally.’  However, ‘substantively,’ the Court effectively began the Civil Rights movement with that unanimous decision, but, should have chosen better law.

Quote:  ”I wished that it had more law in it, (The Brown decision) but I didn’t find anything unacceptable in it.”    Justice R. Jackson

Even today we are argue about “activist Courts or Judges.”  Hmm?

Purveyor 

PHIL,  (Nice work, you held your own)

I hope you appreciate that you are playing around the edges of “neutral principle” in this discussion?

If a man chose to raise dogs just so he could torture them to death, what would be the compelling governmental interest of the State to proscribe such behavior?

And as you asked: “two brothers getting married?  Would that be OK with you?”

Neutral principle requires a compelling Governmental interest before intruding on personal freedom.  In both scenarios, I can make a case against such behavior, thus a “compelling governmental interest” to proscribe such, WITHOUT, stretching the bounds of reason and logic, hence, “neutral principle.”

What Liberals and religio-Conservatives tend to forget, is that there will be a time and issue, when “their Ox is gored,” so to speak.  Then, the respective party doesn’t like neutral principle?  NP is a process that demands adherence, even when it hurts! (“when your Ox is being gored”)  Kind of like church… Ouch!

Purveyor

purveyor1: Hi there. You’re way over my head with that, as you often are, but to tell you truth I got that question from listening to Dennis Prager one morning when he raised it. I thought it was an interesting challenge to those who believe there is a right to gay marriage, as there is no right for family members to get married, so this constitutes a dilemma. Since the usual rationale for family members not being allowed to get married has to do with genetic disorders associated with inbreeding, that of course would not apply in the case of brothers wanting to get married, but there would still be the taboo against it in any case, thus the conflict.

PHIL,

Your question is a perfect exercise in neutral principle, just as the dilemmas’ in yours and my previous posts were.

Ask: “Is their a compelling Governmental interest in the State proscribing a specific behavior and on what grounds,” for instance, murder? Obviously, the State has a number of viable interests in prohibiting murder, especially since American’s believe we have “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which is even codified in the 14th amendment. Ergo, our cultural and Legal mores, prohibit “murder.”

However, first cousins having sex, can cause health related problems? (heterosexual) Is that enough of a “compelling Governmental interest for Governmental intrusion into one’s liberty, and/or privacy?”

What about the definition of “Marriage,” itself? The beauty of the English language is specificity, distinction and articulation, etc. Ergo, when it comes to any deviation from the traditional definition of marriage, I ask: Is the glass half empty or full? Meaning, which way should our “culture” solve the problem, and/or is this a “compelling “Governmental” interest” to have a defined and set, legal definition for marriage? (Cultural or legal problem? Both?)

There, I’ve answered your question with more questions! LOL However, without writing a lengthy legal brief, YES, I can make the argument that two brothers can live together as…whatever? But, NO such is NOT marriage in any Legal sense. I believe the term “civil union” suffices nicely.

In conclusion, my theory of neutral principle, posits a reasoned procedure of logic to work through various dilemmas, NOT emotion. However, sometimes the results aren’t what you expect!

Purveyor

Oh, by the way, good to hear from you. You are unafraid to ask questions and have an inquisitive mind. Well done!

Purveyor