Thursday, August 5, 2010

Newt on the Prop 8 Overturning

AMERICAblog has the story. Quoting Newt Gingrich:

Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.

What's wrong with conservatives? How can they keep saying things like this?

Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. He's just saying what he believes. And a lot of people believe the same thing he does on gay marriage.

    Whether you think his stance on marriage is right or wrong (I happen to believe it's wrong), his stance on Judge Walker showing "outrageous disrespect for our Constitution" is where I take him to task. Just where is it defined in our Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman? You know what is in there though? Equal rights for everyone. Everyone includes gay folks, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Newtie's been married 3 times. He's a serial adulterer.

    Is he really the conservative's best spokesman on how best to defend 'family values?'

    ReplyDelete
  3. The difference between Newt and a sack of shit, is that the sack of shit would look as if it had a better tailor. Newt's been lying, most of the time, about most everything ever since he discovered that it made a "respected" voice of the GOPissants.

    He's still playing catch-up with NotJoe the NotPlumber and Sarah the Impalinator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see the overturning of the disgusting Prop.8 in the same light as the end result of the McDonald decision.

    Both were won by the good and the honest, but let's face it, the unscrupulous in both cases won't be willing to take their defeat lying down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see the overturning of the disgusting Prop.8 in the same light as the end result of the McDonald decision.

    Odd. Gunloons and homophobes usually share the same body.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since the Constitution does not define a marriage, then it is left up to the state to do so. The feds can demand that a marriage created in one state must be recognized in all others though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jadegold: “Odd. Gunloons and homophobes usually share the same body.”

    The only thing that is odd is the incessant bigotry and lack of tolerance coming from a so-called progressive. You’ll forget by tomorrow all us gun owners who support gay rights.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Odd. Gunloons and homophobes usually share the same body."

    Funny, I thought bigots like you and the Prop 8 people stuck together.

    I mean, you both advocate for evil, you both lie your arses off while claiming to be ever-truthful, and let's not get into the darker side...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guy, Your attempt to align gun control folks with anti-gay folks is really funny. Although there are many "enlightened" gun owners nowadays who have no problem accepting homosexuality, they are still in the minority. Your typical gun owner is still a fat white guy (no offense FWM) who has big problems with gays as well as blacks.

    Your "typical" I said. You yourself may not fit that model, so good for you, but the model still works.

    ReplyDelete
  10. B.E. Earl said.."his stance on Judge Walker showing "outrageous disrespect for our Constitution" is where I take him to task. Just where is it defined in our Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman?"

    I believe Newt is stating that the "outrageous disrespect for our Constitution" lies with the fact that we are a sovereign nation and the states within the nation are sovereign as well. Meaning the constituion was designed to allow the states to make their own laws where their own people were concerned. The Federal Government is not supposed to step in and change state laws. Having sovereign states allows us to move to a state that suits our belief system, etc. Before the states were allowed to be sovereign and make their own laws, none of them would join the union as they didn't want to be ruled by the Federal Government. Judge Walker abused his athority by stepping in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon, the states are still obligated to keep their legislation within the limits of the federal constitution. A federal judge is doing his job if he strikes down a state law or constitutional provision that runs afoul of the federal constitution. That document is the Supreme Law of the Land after all.

    I actually took Gingrich's statement to be a rehashing of the misguided idea that the majority will of the people should control on this issue. If Gingrich was suggesting that courts should defer to a simple majority of the public on a matter of civil rights, he is dead wrong. The majority cannot strip civil rights of a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Share with me please exactly where you believe this law "runs afoul of the federal constitution".

    Agreed - "The majority cannot strip civil rights of a minority."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anyone who seriously thinks that Newt Gingrich is a.) concerned in any way with the welfare of the commonweal. and b.) Someone who has the moral highground, in any regard is truly delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon, are you seriously not aware of which constitutional provisions are involved here? They are both found in the 14th Amendment. The due process clause and the equal protection clause.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeB: “Your typical gun owner is still a fat white guy (no offense FWM) who has big problems with gays as well as blacks. Your "typical" I said. You yourself may not fit that model, so good for you, but the model still works.”

    Mike, please describe your “typical” gay man for us. After that, describe your typical black man, then your typical illegal immigrant.

    ReplyDelete