Newt Gingrich, who signed NOM's Marriage Pledge when he ran for president, reiterates his support for marriage:
Reacting to Sen. Rob Portman’s sudden support of same-sex marriage, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Friday that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman “no matter what politicians decide.”
“Well, my stance hasn’t evolved. I observed in December that we’re faced with realities that are different than my personal beliefs,” Gingrich, a former House Speaker, said on CNN. “I believe as the Bible teaches, marriage is between a man and woman. I actually think that marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what politicians decide. I don’t think they have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition.” (Politico)
32 Comments
I'd comment but I'm laughing too hard...
Move on to Moveon billie -poo!
OldKingBlog, OK, but before I go, isn't Newt conceding that SSM is becoming legal, in spite of his personal beliefs (regardless of his credibility on matters pertaining to marriage)? What about Reince Priebus' and Scott Walker's curious comments on SSM in wake of the Portman reversal? How 'bout CPAC? the Lee Boys? Those splashes you hear are the rats abandoning your sinking ship.
Well, OldKingBlog and others can go on beleiving that marriage is between one man adn one woman, even if the entire globe legaises equal marriage. That's called freedom of religion. Believe what you like but don't expect to be able to manifest each and every belief if it harms others. Sincere and profound are not qualities that entitle one to impose beliefs on another.
Newt was born to a 16 year old mother divorced from her 19 year old husband. At age 19, Newt marries a 26 year old woman but divorces her after 18 years of marriage and 2 daughters having started an affair with another woman. Newt weds this other woman but after 12 years begins another affair and divorces wife number 2 some 7 years later having no children with this wife and immediately takes the other woman as wife number 3.And now Newt is NOM's expert on marriage who claims gay people should never be allowed to marry. You can't make this stuff up.
It's difficult to underestimate the sheer bare-faced chutzpah of this man and the fawning reverence paid to him by NOM and others, the outright cognitive dissonance it takes to believe that marriage is between one and one woman FOR LIFE and then to say he is an exemplar and supporter of marriage. He isn't. He is a destroyer of families, the very core of NOM's arguments. I would have more respect if there was at least one word addressing this hypocrisy.
Paul:
Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays virtue.
It is one thing to do evil.
It is quite another to insists that, since one has done the evil, it must therefore be good.
Newt Gingrich has managed not to fall into the irretrievable darkness of the latter malady.
This war continues to the end of time, and we know Who wins.
In the meantime, the battle shifts to SCOTUS on the 26th.
I'll be there, God permitting.
What a day. Washington Post-ABC News poll finds 58% of Americans support gay marriage. And 81% of those between 18-31 (?) do as well. Hillary Clinton comes on board with a lengthy, fully reflective video in support of gay marriage. Who's next? What's next? This is a great time to be alive.
Richard:
SCOTUS is next.
Batter up.
Looks like Hillary Clinton has decided not to run for president.
This is hilarious.....
Rick, my only complaint is how much NOM makes of Gingrich's statements. How much damage do you think that does to your cause?
Ans: a lot.
I am simply gob-smacked that his record of marriage means anything but disqualification and removal from this site. It makes NOM look like hypocrites too.
Hahahahahahahaha
Much like when I first perused Mr. Delano's geocentrist blog, I too thought this was satire when I read it. Or maybe NOM got hacked and the hacker decided to celebrate April Fool's Day early.
Or, Will, perhaps you simply don't distinguish between fantasy and reality particularly well.
It is perfectly reasonable that NOM should call attention to Gingrich's singularly welcome and courageous defense of the human reality of marriage, Paul.
It is perfectly unreasonable to suppose, as you gobsmacked folk must, that merely because someone has failed to live out the truth of marriage in its fulness, that therefore marriage ought to be erased in its totality.
This really does not follow, Paul.
I am amused at the posts here that mock Gingrich's past relationships, but not try to challenge him. Because someone has failed to live up to the standards they have set for themselves, they are deemed not credible.
Yet they turn a blind eye to the misfortunes(in some cases criminal) of their ideological leaders.
No debate, just ridicule and mock.
Newt may have his failings but he is certainly not a sodomite.
Chronic adulterer? Pro-marriage as they income...
@Peter
Yea ol Edwards was quite the family man himself. Denying a child he conceived with another woman and lying about it till the day his ex-wife died. To think that man was once considered a front-runner for the Democratic Party.
At least republicans admit their mistakes...democrats bury them and home their followers will be good little minions and cover for them.
typo: hope*
All good points, Zack.
If liberals didn't have double and triple standards, they would have no standards at all.
For years Democrats have been having it both ways. They've had a long history of racism (Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr and Jr, Bull Connor), yet they claim to be the party of civil rights. They've privately treated women abysmally (The Kennedys, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer), but claim to be the party of women's rights. And they've gone on the campaign trail saying they do not support gay marriage while they've claimed to be the gay-friendly party. Joe Biden voted for DOMA and Bubba Clinton signed it, but now since that is where the money is at, they are all too willing to forgo principles for the almighty dollar.
Earth to PaulMc: We normal people have only two comments REyour statements that "Well, OldKingBlog and others can go on beleiving that marriage is between one man adn one woman, even if the entire globe legaises equal marriage. That's called freedom of religion. Believe what you like but don't expect to be able to manifest each and every belief if it harms others. Sincere and profound are not qualities that entitle one to impose beliefs on another: " 1) Huh? That rhetorical mish-mosh you posted isn't even shallow, let alone coherent; and 2) you clearly have a propensity for wishful thinking.
Earth to Richard: Just one comment RE your statement that "What a day. Washington Post-ABC News poll finds 58% of Americans support gay marriage. And 81% of those between 18-31 (?) do as well. Hillary Clinton comes on board with a lengthy, fully reflective video in support of gay marriage. Who's next? What's next? This is a great time to be alive:" all that you post i mere wishful thinking. You degenerates and cutural deteriorators will NEVER be regarded as anything more than insignificant. Capiche?
SofA - What makes you say that Mrs. Clinton has decided not to run for President? Is it that she expressed her support for marriage equality? In 2012, the candidate who supported equality won the election. Support for equality has been growing each year.
Then OKB, 58% of America, 81% of those age 18-30, 85-90% of Catholics must be hugely interested in the insignificant. Let's see old, white republican men make up 30% who would agree with you...are you at all related?
Richard:
Polls do not determine the outcome of elections.
Elections determine the outcome of elections.
The matter as it stands is:
Marriage: 31
Pseudo-marriage: 2
It is a truly remarkable insight into the Alinskyite world view to be able to conclude from these facts that pseudo-marriage has won.
The Big Lie, I believe it is called........
Rick, explain your math (31 and 2). As regards polls: just don't bring up Nate Silver when you talk to your fellow members of the "polls don"t matter" club.
Hi OKB: Well rhtetoric is pretty much order of the day around here.
Nonetheless, this statement is not rhtetoric but is my best advice to you.
"don't expect to be able to manifest each and every belief if it harms others".
The US is not a theocracy. SCOTUS will apply rational consideration of 'harm to self and others'.
You cannot manfiest religious beliefs that harm others and expect them to be the law of the land.
That's
Hi Rick; "The matter as it stands is:
Marriage: 31
Pseudo-marriage: 2"
Agreed. Those are the facts. But equal marriage pertains in other states through representative democractic votes by State Houses or the Courts which are the other pillars of the nation.
So...
Polls do not determine the outcome of elections.
Elections do not determine equal rights.
Marc:
Since the Supreme Court has already determined (Baker v. Nelson) that no constitutional right to pseudo-marriage exists, we completely agree that equal rights are not involved in any of these elections.
The definition of marriage is involved.
The matter stands as above.
Next stop SCOTUS.
Marc,
Your belief that your depravity is of nature is a religion; a religion of ignorance. You have no right to impose a religion on the people of this nation that is not consistent with this nations history and traditions.
The fact that the Judea/Christian faith is consistent with the laws of nature and natures God does not justify severing our connection with our history and traditions.
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins; freedom is not a gift that was bestowed upon us by other ean. but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Benjamin Franklin