Now, this is interesting:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich declined Friday to outright reject a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington state, saying if it is approved by voters it will at least be enacted “the right way.”
The former House speaker’s comments came on a visit to the state Capitol where he also met privately with Republican legislators. Washington’s Democratic governor signed the gay marriage bill last week and it will take effect in June unless opponents can gather enough signatures to force a fall referendum.
Gingrich cited the possibility of a public vote in appraising the hot-button issue, noting that judges have authorized same-sex marriage in other places.
“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,” Gingrich said.
Well, actually, Washington State has already done it the “right way”; the elected legislature debated the legislation, voted on it and the elected governor signed the bill into law.
That’s how it was done in NY. And then in NJ when the people spoke through their legislature the governor vetoed the legislation. How is that reconciled?
Actually, here in NYS, “gay marriage”, was bought by GAY INC and illegal manuvering in the legislature. That’s why the law suit to repeal the legislation hasn’t been thrown out of court. (Yet.)
I think it’s called “the State Constitution”, IP. I imagine that NJ’s works kind of like the U.S. constitution does. Here’s a refresher on how the latter makes law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TI8xqLl_-w
The Executive’s signature (or lack thereof) is a required feature of the legislative process that the People chose to institute.
Because Chris Christie wants to run for President in 2016 or 2020 and thinks vetoing that legislation will help his chances. I think he’s unwisely taking the short view on what is clearly a long-term project, but it’s his choice I guess.
Two snaps to you Serenity. . .
I also like to see this kind of push
http://www.christianpost.com/news/cheney-other-gop-heavyweights-pushed-for-passage-of-md-gay-marriage-bill-69940/
Sent from my iPad
FYI-I was being sarcastic…
No complaints from me about the Gingrich opinions reported.
It is passing strange, though, that Darth Vader Cheney gets on the “right” (as in politically correct) side of gay marriage and he is snubbed. What happens to a “so-con’s” credentials of hate and bigotry when he joins the other side on an issue? Do the “so-con’s” gang up on him and chase him out of town?
On the other hand, do the libs risk losing all the hate they have invested in trashing Cheney if they accept his support of one of their issues? Or do they take the support and bury the story to save face?
They’ll still carp at “Darth Cheney” just like Ken Mehlman.
FYI-Me too…
It’s still incredibly stupid to be running around talking about legalizing gay marriage in ‘the right way.’ Unless you think there’s something inherently wrong with the Constitution, the three branch system, or checks and balances, there is absolutely nothing wrong with courts ruling gay marriage prohibition unconstitutional. It is painfully obvious that the Republicans who stress the legislative route are only doing so because it takes so long, which allows them to use the issue every election to whip up their socially conservative base. Republican politics depends on having social issues to motivate their base, and even if they can tell the writing is on the wall with regards to gay marriage, they can still use it to their political advantage.
Duh.
Is anyone really surprised that Levi doesn’t have a problem with judicial overreach, as long as it benefits him?
I’m sure he supports Citizens United, as it was just a way of not going through the long process of repealing McCain-Feingold. Right LEvi? Right?
Now hush Levi… the adults are talking.
Only if there is a gay marriage amendment, and the Washington Supreme Court rejected the idea. See Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2006)
Levi,
You really should read the Constitution sometime.
Marriage is a state issue and a state issue alone. If you want the Supreme Court to “fix” the issue, ask them to overturn all 50 states in defining marriage as one woman and one man on the basis that it (somehow) violates the 14th amendment. Then the court must explain its reasoning and direct the states to specifically permit same sex marriage of only two people. (They will have to explain why only two.)
Meanwhile, if the states care to change their marriage definitions, as some have, the state legislatures have that power and the governor has the power to veto it and make the legislatures come up with super majorities.
But you want judicial rule. You want a judge to just cut through the process and decree what should be. However, if that judge were decreeing that your liberty be curbed in some manner, you would be up in arms. You want the enlightened, liberal type of judicial decree.
Therefore, you see adopting gay marriage via the slow and tedious legislative process as a loss, because the more it happens the less viable the judicial rule process becomes.
In short, you don’t much like the representative democracy process. You far prefer a dictatorship by the “enlightened” few.
Except when it comes to interracial marriage.
Unfortunately, Stupidity, that is because the US constitution has three explicit amendments prohibiting criminalization of conduct based solely on race.
Gay-sex marriage is not criminalized; it simply isn’t recognized. Perhaps you can explain why that is unconstitutional when there are other clear examples of marriage that are not recognized without it being unconstitutional.
@NDT,
Now now, Amy doesn’t understand how the constitution works. We can cut her a little slack, being on her side of the pond and all.
That even after the Civil War, people still believed the Federal Government did not have the power to interfere in internal workings of the states and had to amend the constitution to take that power speaks volumes about how far we’ve fallen.
Vetoes are part of the state legislative process. In New Hampshire, if the governor vetoes a bill that repeals same-sex marriage, that would be procedurally proper, regardless of the merits of the veto.