NOM BLOG

Newt Gingrich Turns Table on Media and Asks: "Why Aren't You Asking About Obama's Bigotry?"

 

At last Saturday's GOP debate in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich jumps in to ask why the moderators aren't asking about President Obama's discrimination against Catholic institutions? Mitt Romney steps in to affirm Gingrich's concerns as valid and says "3000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly."

36 Comments

  1. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    All distortions and blatant lies. You guys should be ashamed to post this. Romney was Governor of Massachusetts - he knows the truth about what happened.

  2. Dan Hess
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    God bless Newt, for saying what needs to be said.

  3. Dan Hess
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Romney's words were excellent as well.

  4. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Dan - I wonder if you'd call his words "excellent" of you were aware of the facts and realized that Romney just told a blatant lie.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    This was a moment of brilliance in the debate. Gingrich said in another debate that he'll tell the truth, and it will be perceived as an attack. That's so true. Kudos to both candidates for exposing the real consequences of SSM.

  6. SearchCz
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    How can you tell when a politician is lying? You can see their lips moving.

    The catholic church has NEVER been forced to close adoption services because of their refusal to place children into same-sex households! Nor have they been driven out of providing charitable services.

    They are free to continue those services, and to follow their religious beliefs when determining placement.

    The only thing the catholic church has lost in these cases is government funding ... meaning ... the taxpayer is no longer forced to underwrite these efforts. Adherents are still free to do so, voluntarily.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    By funding institutions that support "homosexual' adoption while refusing to fund those institutions that refuse to do so due to religious convictions the government is, in fact, favoring one religion over the other in direct violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    You do not see the government cutting off funding to Catholic charities for their use of our tax dollars in support of illegal immigrants...

  8. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Facts:
    - The CC of Boston conflict was with a 1989 anti-discrimination law, not the 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage.
    - CCB has complied with the law for 17 years and placed over a dozen kids with gay or lesbian parents.
    - The Archdiocese CHOSE to change their policy.
    - The Archdiocese sought exemption from the 1989 law - prompting several CC board members to resign in protest.
    - The Archdiocese forced CC of Boston to end adoption services.
    Mitt was there, he knows all this.

  9. SearchCz
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Bobby --> good post - thanks !

  10. M. Jones
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, its all the same, when it comes to giving gays special rights. This results in a declining marriage culture and charges of Christian bigotry, and yes Mitt knows this too.

  11. SearchCz
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Interesting that Newton chose a catholic college venue to make this point. Some might call it pandering to his audience.

  12. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    M.Jones: So you're admitting that Romney lied and my post is factual? The "special rights" talking point is tired and unfounded. There's nothing "special" about protecting gays and lesbians under the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else. I assume that you're referring to the 1989 law because, as I noted above, the issue had nothing to do with marriage equality (again, not special rights, equal rights).

  13. Son of Adam
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    If Catholic Charities of Boston has complied with a law for 17 years and placed over a dozen kids with gay or lesbian parents, then they were violating their own religious convictions. The legalization of SS"M" was a shot in the arm, so to speak, that helped them realize this. By then it was too late now that the state of Massachusetts no longer respects religious liberties.

  14. Louis E.
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Bobby,there is no excuse for characterizing obstruction of efforts to penalize behavior as protection of persons belonging to a class defined by desire to engage in the particular behavior.
    "Gays and lesbians" should be subject to the same opposite-sex-partners-required laws as everybody else,when it comes to qualifying for rewards offered for forming opposite-sex relationships in exchange for the benefits opposite-sex relationships offer society.

  15. Son of Adam
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    "The catholic church has NEVER been forced to close adoption services because of their refusal to place children into same-sex households! Nor have they been driven out of providing charitable services.
    They are free to continue those services, and to follow their religious beliefs when determining placement."

    Don't you need a license from the state in order to provide adoption services?

  16. SearchCz
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam --> ...now that the state of Massachusetts no longer respects religious liberties.

    Was Catholic Charities of Boston shut down by the state? I hadn't heard about that. In fact, I'm pretty sure they are still in operation, and free to determine their own policies as they see fit. Its just that taxpayers are no longer required to underwrite those biased policies.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    You need to be issued a license to provide adoption services, SearchCz. And the state of Massachusetts has refused to renew Catholic Charites' license for their refusal to compromise their religious principles.

  18. John Noe
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Watch this video carefully. See the forest through the trees. Christians, Jews, and other religious people in this country have assumed that the USA is a place for religious freedom.

    The ACLU, liberals, leftists, progressives, and others want to take this right away.

    How important in freeom of religion to you. Will this affect your vote? Is our constitution more important than the economy.

  19. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Stop spreading lies, SOA. CC of Boston voluntarily ended their services. They never applied for a license and were denied. It is true that they can't provide adoption services for the state (remember, adoption services are performed as a service to the state, not as a private act of worship) unless they comply with the 1989 anti-discrimination law but the status of marriage equality has no effect in the situation one way or the other.

  20. Louis E.
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Bobby,adoption agencies should be free to have higher standards for potential parents than required by the state,if the state is so lax and irresponsible as to treat same-sex couples as fit "parents" I wouldn't want to see any child placed through an agency that did not go beyond the state requirements and preclude that.

    I would hope that the private arrangement of adoptions remains legal and can be steered through people whose ethics require the protection of children from the risk of being consigned to the custody of same-sex couples or people who will fail to teach the children that same-sex sexual relationships can not be justified.

  21. Bobby
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Louis: The state has very high standards for adoptive homes. Since the state doesn't hold your irrational, prejudiced, b-worded views, many gay and lesbian households meet and exceed those standards.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Not matter how you spin it, Bobby, the government of Massachusetts has restricted CC from providing adoption services because of their faith. And legislation that forces people who are religious to choose between their faith and their businesses is unconstitutional. No homosexual couple would have been harmed if the state provided an exception for CC, as the constitution required. But since they refused, countless children are denied the dedicated services of CC.

  23. Louis E.
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Bobby,it is failure to disqualify same-sex couples that is irrational.The state should be actively promoting the breakup of all "gay and lesbian households".

  24. Bobby
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Louis: The state should terminate all opposite sex relationships and force people into same-sex ones - mandatory homosexuality. Does that suggestion bring the conversation to a level of absurdity that you're comfortable with?

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    "The state should terminate all opposite sex relationships and force people into same-sex ones - mandatory homosexuality. Does that suggestion bring the conversation to a level of absurdity that you're comfortable with?"

    Humanity can prosper and survive without homosexual relationships. But it cannot do the same without heterosexual relationships. That is why society has an interest to promote male/female integration, not promoting and encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle that kills thousands a year with the STDs it spreads.

  26. Bobby
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    SOA: You're confusing promiscuity and unhealthy lifestyles with being gay or lesbian. Plenty of straight people live unhealthy lifestyles too - shall we ban man-woman marriage and remove all anti-discrimination laws protecting straight peoole in response? If that's the best you have, it's no wonder your side is losing.

  27. SearchCz
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    SOA: Humanity can prosper and survive without homosexual relationships.

    Which are the cultures that are prospering and surviving without homosexual relationships?

  28. Son of Adam
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    This only goes to show how much of your views are based on the misinformation the media spoonfeeds you, Bobby. Even if we ignore the issue of procreation, the evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions.

    Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, over 80 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2009 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.

    Whatever health risks are involved with heterosexual activity is offset by the fact that it ensures the survival and propogation of our species. In contrast, homosexuality only spreads disease and violates religious liberties.

  29. leo
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    SOA, Amen!

  30. SearchCz
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    An analogy ... imagine if ...

    1) ... the government (aka the public, aka you and I) established a funded program to improve public health by teaching kids about proper nutrition and exercise ...

    2) ... then a religious organization signed on to administer such a program in their community, in turn receiving public funds for that effort ...

    3) ... and that, in good conscience with their beliefs, they insisted on teaching that proper nutrition equals our daily bread ...

    4) ... further, they refused to teach about the benefits of physical activity, because bodily exercise profiteth little.

    The taxpayer should continue to fund that organization ... in fact, has no choice but to continue to fund that ... because anything else would compromise the boston organization's religious liberty?

    Nonsense. If an organization can't or won't do the work for which public funds are allocated -- for whatever reasons -- they ought not get those funds. Simple.

  31. SearchCz
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    SOA: homosexuality only spreads disease and violates religious liberties

    You seem to be operating under the idea that "religious liberty" somehow means that others must conform to YOUR beliefs. But if you check that Constitution, you'll find that I'm not required to believe the same things about God and God's nature that you choose to believe.

    And you can be comforted that the law will never compel you to adopt my religious beliefs. That's how "liberty" works.

    Cheers!

  32. SearchCz
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    SOA: Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, over 80 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2009 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.

    1) HIV/AIDS - In EVERY year since 1999, the majority of newly diagnosed cases have been through heterosexual contact. Injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States

    2) The majority of the other health outcomes you cite are a product of promiscuity and risky behavior.

    3) What are the comparative stats among married homosexuals ... and to what extent does stigmatizing gays & denying them equal access to marriage contribute to the statistics you cite?

  33. Son of Adam
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    That's a strawman if I have ever heard one, SearchCz. Religious liberty means that the government cannot ostrasize and penalize people for their religious beliefs, regardless of whatever moral standard of a special interest group they choose to sponsor.

    And I don't know where you are getting your info, but it totally conflicts with that of the Center of Disease Control that reports every year, the vast majority of new AIDS cases belong to homosexuals.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2009report/pdf/table17a.pdf

    Since the threat of getting AIDS or some other STD does not promote homosexual monogamy, it is not likely that redefining marriage will. Especially with so many gay couples keeping their marriages "open" and the fact that AIDS cases among gays have risen significantly since SS"M" became legal.

  34. Louis E.
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Bobby,no matter who wins or loses for how long in any place,your side is wrong forever.

    Opposite-sex sexual relationships are the only kind humanity needs and the only kind entitled to legal protection.

  35. SearchCz
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Louis E: Opposite-sex sexual relationships are the only kind humanity needs and the only kind entitled to legal protection.

    You seem to have no idea the wide range of interpersonal relationships that have specific legal rights, responsibilities, and protections. For example:

    1) parent / child
    2) employer / employee
    3) buyer / seller
    4) landlord / renter

    etc., etc., etc.

    Please cite your study showing that same-sex relationships are not needed by humanity. As a person of faith, I believe God created them because they are needed.

  36. Little man
    Posted January 15, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    Here's the answer to the debate continued by Bobby: There are some instances where the lack of federal funding rendered the orphan placing service financially untenable (remember we are in a bad economy, and charities feel it, first). Charities have employees. To have quality employees an organization needs to offer them a good enough job. In other instances, as the video link below voices, the orphan placing was given two choices (the push for 'equality'): either close down, or service same-sex partnerships (whether of homosexual persuasion or not) for adoptions.

    Bobby is like the anchor person in this video who doesn't have her information up-to-date:
    http://www.nomblog.com/17799/