NOM BLOG

Frank Schubert Responds to Gingrich's Gay Marriage Gamble

 

Newt Gingrich, in a recent interview with The Huffington Post, agreed with the false claim that redefined marriage is "inevitable" and that those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife should compromise the truth of marriage.

Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, responds below:

"Newt Gingrich has provided valuable public service to America. As a candidate he signed NOM’s pledge to take action as president to preserve marriage.

But sometimes good men say stupid things, and this is one of those times.

Gingrich’s conclusion that gay “marriage” is inevitable is ridiculous. His comments suggest the results of marriage races in Maine, Maryland and Washington, which allowed three deep-blue states to endorse redefining marriage means that it is inevitable. I wonder if the Speaker also thinks that the Republican Party is doomed and can never again win a national election. After all, marriage performed, on average, 6.6 points better than did the Republican ticket in these very Democratic states.

Yes, we are disappointed with the election results, but let us not overstate their importance. By an overwhelming 60% margin (according to a national survey conducted by Gingrich’s own pollster, Kellyanne Conway), the American people continue to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Gay “marriage” is no more inevitable than is permanent Democratic control of the White House.

Finally, I trust Newt understands that gay relationships are already 'legal' in all 50 states. Our challenge is to ensure that marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman remains defined as such in our nation's laws."

20 Comments

  1. Posted December 21, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    This comment from Gingrich would be, perhaps, a response to how NOM treated him during the primaries. NOM supported Romney more, and ignored other GOP runners for candidacy (e.g., Gingrich). I do think Gingrich is incorrect regarding the supposed inevitability of 'gay marriage', since no State has legislated 'gay marriage'. Same-sex marriage is not gay marriage. Note Gingrich is not quoted as using the term 'gay marriage', but Huffington Post is certainly often loose with wording. Gingrich also does not take into account that ballot voting only supported same-sex marriage in very Democrat States. Marriage (Church or State marriage) is much more than a contract of love. Anyone can say "I love you", but.... so what?

  2. Ash
    Posted December 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Great response by Frank.

  3. David in Houston
    Posted December 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Newt was correct in emphasizing the difference between an optional religious sacrament in church (that has no legal meaning) and a legal kinship between two consenting adults (civil marriage). Unfortunately, NOM refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference when they claim that marriage is solely a religious institution that joins a man and woman and possibly, maybe, some theoretical children. Luckily the public isn't falling for that deception anymore. Even two-time adulterer Newt isn't buying what NOM's selling. It's about time.

  4. Herb
    Posted December 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, "since no State has legislated 'gay marriage"??? What do you mean by this? NH legislated Gay Marriage.

  5. Jeanette Exner
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    The "truth" of marriage really depends upon one's own sexual orientation. For the majority of people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), it's perfectly natural and understandable that their idea of marriage would be the commitment of a man and a woman.

    But for people who are Gay, it's irrelevant. "Natural marriage" to us is a commitment to another Gay person of the same sex.

    This is not to say that we do not accept our Straight friends. Of course we do. We understand that a "natural marriage" for them is between two heterosexual people of the opposite sex. Fortunately most Straight people today have a much better understanding of their Gay friends, family members, and co-worker, and they understand what "natural marriage" means to US.

  6. B DeCicco
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    I think the stupidest aspect of Gingrich's comments was that his statement reflected exactly what the same sex marriage agenda advocates WANT people to conclude; it is part of their plan and it is infuriating to see him and others fall into the trap.

  7. Son of Adam
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    There is nothing "natural" about using the anus as a vagina. It is an exit, not an entrance. And there is no scientific evidence that shows it has ever been designed for sexual intercourse.

    It is totally hypocritical to define marriage based on sexual desires and then only redefine it exclusively for homosexuality while all other sexual relationships like polyamory and incest continue to be discriminated against, just because they lack the wealth and influence to push their wants and desires into the law.

    I makes more consistent and logical sense to define marriage based on biology, which works the same for everybody regardless of their sexual desires.

  8. Jeanette Exner
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    DEAR SON OF ADAM:

    We're talking about marriage here, not sex. People do not need to marry to enjoy sex, nor are married people required to have sex. Couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    People get married because they want to make a formal commitment to one another. Whether they are Gay or Straight is irrelevant. And your obsession with what married couples do in the bedroom is ... well, just a bit creepy.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    DEAR JEANETTE EXNER:

    Marriage has been established in the first place to provide a stable family setting to raise the children that come out of sexual relationships: with a mother and a father.

    You're the one making marriage solely about the wants and desires of adults. If that's truly the case, then why does marriage have to be between only two people? Why not three, or four, or more? Isn't maintaining such a numerical standard a throwback to the old fashioned notion that putting men and women together so they can have children and raise them as a mother and a father has any importance and relevance to society whatsoever?

    This is not about what couples do in the bedroom. This is about putting the best interests of children ahead of the wants and desires of adults.

  10. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    The public interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father. Not all such unions produce children, of course, but they are the only union in which it is possible. Biological parentage is important, as is lineage.

    Redefining marriage fragments the family. As a society we need to try to strengthen it instead.

  11. Posted December 22, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Herb: check yourself. New Hampshire did not legalize 'gay marriage'. There's no way to determine whether someone's gay except by testimony. On the other hand, it is possible (if needed) to check a person's sex by inspection. So legislation is never stupid enough to pass anything 'gay', when it cannot even be determined. All legislation is always on same-sex marriage, or nothing at all. Many legislators are easily snowed on this topic, because they got elected by trying to get along with everyone, and appeasing all who are in conflict. But gradually, a new political party is forming (in practice) - the party of same-sex marriage. It is a party within a party. and those politicians who don't dare oppose it, in essence join it (and gradually lose elections or votes). It all moves very slowly.

  12. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted December 22, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is perversion plain and simple.
    "Homosexual marriage" is non-existent. To refer to a same-sex union as a marriage is just a lie and a sham.

  13. Randy E King
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    As an engineer we know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connector; if you would like to connect parts with similar surfaces we MUST bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever being a marriage - the joining of opposites.

    That said; when you find yourself completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity it may be time to re-evaluate your decision making processes.

    Just saying!

  14. Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Little Man:

    We don't need the philanderer Gingrich defending the institution of marriage.

  15. Stefan
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Little man, what about all the straight married couples that practice anal sex? Are you as obsessed with their sex lives as you are with the sex lives of gay couples?

  16. Stefan
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, last post was actually directed to SOA and of course the engineer in the crowd, Randy.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted December 24, 2012 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    @Stefan,

    These individual define themselves by their depravity; right minded couples are defined by nature.

    Experimentation is normal and healthy; making a career out of it is perverted.

  18. Posted December 24, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Stephan: Actually i am the least obsessed, because marriage is not about love or sex. It is about children conceived and/or born. Government is very interested in who is going to take care of them. If no one will, and are born citizens, it behooves the government to take care of them (expensive). It is not about commitment, though self-centered adults may think so. It is ultimately about economy for the government. That is what civil marriage is. If marriage is merely friendship, then the government can get out of the marriage business, and people can hook-up anyway they would like, without even bothering about getting a marriage license. But the costs to government would skyrocket, as they already are in very Democrat States. The defense of marriage in on very logical, compassionate, terms. We have nothing to apologize for.

  19. Son of Adam
    Posted December 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Two wrongs don't make a right, Stefan.

  20. Ash
    Posted December 27, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    @Jeannette,

    So, marriage is not about sex. Well, if marriage is just a registry of friendships, it would make the exclusive nature of this "commitment," and the supposed injustice to gay people (who allegedly can't form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex) extremely questionable.

    Following your argument, this recognition of friendship should either be opened to all groups who share "commitment," or marriage should be abolished, as recognition of commitment is not a legitimate state interest.