Gingrich on prop 8

Gingrich at a Q and A session in a university where he just did a big talk opened the floor to a bunch of college kids. I thought that he would have one some of them over with these answers that he gave. The question here is on prop 8 in California. I think that he does the best job so far of articulating the social conservative position on this matter. as for the whiny leftist at the end watch for the way he asks his question with 2 quick cheap shots (he asks his question in a way that makes 2 statements first) before discussing the question posed by the girl before.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Newt
• Gingrich
• Prop
• gay
• marriage
• Miss
• california
• perez
• hilton
• christian
• bible
• conservative
• america

[cpmower]

@aussiveconservative - informatist is doing EXACTLY what progressive/liberals like to do. Give you some far fetched, blown out of proportion point. And say "This is what so and so is saying." I Think Speaker Gingrich made a fantastic point on the issue at hand. And the kid at the end, had nothing to say, when Gingrich spoke AGAIN about the will of the people.

[aussieconservative]

@cpmower yeah leftists we can speak for ourselves don't need you to interpret for us ok

[dseanmat]

What's enormously depressing to me, irrespective of the views of the students, is how uneducated they sound. The young woman who spoke is utterly oblivious of the democratic process, and the fact that activist judges imposing their wills on a majority who disagrees with them is obviously not "democratic." Then, the young man who speaks suggests that Gingrich's view is wrong in part because it garners less liberal applause than the young woman's view, as if that matters.Who's teaching these kids?

[informatist]

What Newt side-stepped is her comparisons to the civil rights movement... Interracial marriage was also voted down by the majority and then overturned by the courts... and the people who were against interracial marriage cited the Bible as their reason too... So is Newt saying that we never should have allowed interracial marriage?

[synon9m]

SO TYPICAL OF THE LEFT. This girl is rhetorically implying the Right doesn't respect the will of the people. The irony is when that same process repudiates large government and higher taxes, they (the Left) take to streets, protest, raise hell, harass and intimidate until they get what they want.

[aussieconservative]

@Jakeof5 the marriage thing is a proxy for something else. its a short hand to homosexuals getting the same identical rights that people that are married have. If i give a woman power, through marriage, over a frozen sperm sample and she then gets divorced from me and gets married to another woman, could she still use the sample? Would gay couples have the same adoption rights as hetrosexual couples? marriage takes care of these things in one go. there is more to this than is being said.

[aussieconservative]

@Jakeof5 just because athiests do something doesnt mean that it makes any sense? marriage is not a necessary tradition for atheists, just as if people have equal treatment, marriage is not a necessaciary thing for homosexuals. marriage is a religous tradition that groups that have no claim over it are imposing their own seperate values. I agree that if you are a gay couple and you want things like power of attonery over your partner you have my support if you want tax advantages that too.

[Jakeof5]

@aussieconservative it's not only religious though. I know plenty of people who are atheist but are still allowed to get "married". They did not get married in a church (no did they want to) but they still get to call it marriage because it is a man and a woman? I don't understand that.

I think to deny anyone a life of monogamy doesn't make sense. I don't think I'll understand that. I'd love to understand where people against gay marriage are coming from though.

[aussieconservative]

@Jakeof5 why do you care about marriage then? it is a religious tradition.

[MrSinister84]

This is the last guy that should say anything about marriage, unless being married three times is part of that 3000 year old tradition.  As for a majority voting on a minority, didn't we have that for civil rights for blacks and women? So it isn't that much of an argument or even fair. And again no real factual argument against marriage equality even when most major countries have it and not experienced an apocalypse. So it really is just bigotry renamed as personal beliefs and tradition,

[MrSinister84]

@Gina2NYC

Lol Pedophiles? First what does two consenting adults relationship have to do with that? And when should the majority pass laws on the minority? We had that when we had slavery, and no civil rights. Your morals and values don't speak for everyone.

[cpmower]

@informatist - you are WRONG. The liberal democrats of the SOUTH didn't want interracial marriage. You forget the history of the republican party was they wanted to ABOLISH slavery. Also, marriage is not a RIGHT for anyone. It always has been, and always SHOULD BE, a religious institution. The government, nor the judiciary has the right to legislate, or rule, on matters that are religious in nature. ALSO, this matter was voted on 2x by Californians. They voted for it TWICE.