Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Gingrich Calls Marriage Equality An “Aberration That Will Dissipate”

Jim Burroway

September 30th, 2011

His wedding band doubles as a mood ring.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told an Iowa audience today:

“I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,” Gingrich said. “It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.”

Hey, you can laugh all you want, but Gingrich knows of what he speaks. He’s already had two marriages dissipate out from under him and is working on his third.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Terry T
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

Sorry Gingrich, bigotry is the aberration.

Blake
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

Wow. That is a stunning window into the mind of an opponent. He appears to be saying that he is so sure of his convictions that something which stands opposed to them will eventually collapse under its own inertia. Clearly he possesses not one teensy bit of empathy for our cause and illustrates exactly why Conservatism is a dead-end philosophy.

Rob Lll
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

“An aberration that will dissipate”? Sounds more like Newt is talking about one of his own marriages. What’s he on now — his third? Fourth?

Rob Lll
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

Oops, sorry. Didn’t see the end of the post.

I do have a question though. Why does anyone still listen to this man? Does he still have some credibility with conservative voters?

Lindoro Almaviva
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

Sorry, but at least one of his marriages did not dissipate from under him; that description is more suitable for his wife, given how Mr G was down with adultery while at the same time demanding the president’s head for the same offense.

Charles
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

I wonder if he consulted his gay sister before he made this statement …….. I would say no.

Charles
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

“Wow. That is a stunning window into the mind of an opponent. He appears to be saying that he is so sure of his convictions that something which stands opposed to them will eventually collapse under its own inertia. Clearly he possesses not one teensy bit of empathy for our cause and illustrates exactly why Conservatism is a dead-end philosophy.” – Blake

Gays can get married right now. The fact is that the “government” will not recognize the marriage. I am a fiscal conservative and tend to believe in the loosely defined Tea Party principles. Government is too darn big. Do we really need the stamp of approval of government on gay marriages?

Sir Andrew
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

I agree with him: Marriage is between a man and a woman. But it’s ALSO between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. Every time someone says that man/woman thing, they are trying to plant the idea that gay guys or lesbians getting married is going to eliminate the marriages that are between opposite genders. It is one of the more dishonest arguments they come up with.

And agreeing with Rob: Yes, why IS anyone still listening to this idiot? He is a presidential candidate in his mind only; there’s not a single political pundit who is taking his candidacy seriously. His entire senior campaign staff has walked out. His contributors have asked for their money back. I can’t believe he is still a blib on the polls. He needs to back his bigotry in his old kit bag and hie on home.

Timothy Kincaid
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

Charles,

I can sympathize with you thinking except for two things:

If the government gives its stamp of approval to my brothers marriage but not to mine solely because as a hetero he married a woman and as a gay man my spouse would also be male, then we are talking about rewarding heterosexual people for being heterosexual and disadvantaging homosexual people for being homosexual. And that, my friend, is about far from “small Government” as you can get.

Second: yes, we do need the stamp of approval of the govt. That’s what stores, hospitals, neighbors, car salesmen, and “free vacation” hawkers use to recognize who is and who is not married. It’s also what is needed to be sure your sweet lovely caring and committed other-half stays sweet loving caring and committed when the cute young thing starts batting his eyelashes.

Christopher
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

He obviously doesn’t know history.

CPT_Doom
September 30th, 2011 | LINK

So Mr. Gingrich wants to elevate the homewrecker who broke up his second marriage (the one t the homewrecker who broke up his first marriage) to the position of “First Lady” of the land and he has the gall to criticize same-sex couples? I guess cojones that large could explain why any woman would want to sleep with this putz.

Charles
October 1st, 2011 | LINK

Timothy, I think that the Supreme Court is going to make gay marriage recognized by the government. In the meantime there is no need to stop any gay couple from getting married and honoring their vows.

MJC
October 1st, 2011 | LINK

…and he uses the word ‘fundamentally’ in every statement he makes. How is it that people consider him ‘intellectual’? I guess compared to what you’re used to, he might ‘sound edumacated’. In fact, he is a gasbag of Jovian proportions. And in the European cathedrals, I can show you the graves of church-blessed same sex couples. You aren’t ‘conserving’ anything, Newt, other than hatred, bigotry, and undeserved power.

Priya Lynn
October 1st, 2011 | LINK

MJC said “And in the European cathedrals, I can show you the graves of church-blessed same sex couples.”.

MJC, I came across that on the internet several years ago but have been unable to find it since. Could you please email me a link to that at priya dot lynn at sasktel dot net

San Diego Rob
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

I believe he divorced one of his wives while she was dying on her death bed from cancer, way to go Newt!

cd
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

I learned from Sherwood Anderson’s “Winesburg, Ohio” that one should not argue with an old man about his dreams.

In ten years gay marriage will be legal in most or all of the country. I’m going to enjoy watching DOMA and all those mini-DOMAs dissipate, weird aberrations that they are.

Donny D.
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

What a goofy thing to say. Gingrich must see that the fight for gay marriage isn’t going to go away.

PLAINTOM
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

Newt is on his third marriage and second religion but has the egotism to state equal rights are a temporary aberration. History will not judge him kindly. He reminds me of previous Southern politicians proudly proclaiming, ” Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”

David
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

This kind of shortsighted miscalculation is not uncommon among fundamentalist conservatives, who vastly overestimate how much the rest of the nation aligns with their own conservative beliefs.

This statement by Gingrich is oddly reminiscent of George Wallace’s infamous “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”.

We see how that turned out. In the end, even Wallace himself admitted he was wrong.

Jim Hlavac
October 2nd, 2011 | LINK

Is the man obtuse? NY just OK’d our marriages — yes, Newt, the gay marriage issue will dissipate when folks like stop trying to prevent it and condemn. As for history, I suggest he pick up a copy of John Boswell’s “Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe” — indeed, Boswell showed that there wasn’t even a law against gay sex anywhere in Europe until the late 1300s. And there are dozens of rites one could use to solemnize same-sex unions, and many invoke Sts. Serge and Bacchus — who were quite the happy Christian couple, martyred for who they were – wow, a Catholic saints gay couple; how so opposite to what this philander believes.

Richard Rush
October 3rd, 2011 | LINK

Is there any aspect of Newt Gingrich that is not sleazy?

Jonathan Justice
October 3rd, 2011 | LINK

It strikes me that Newt is the aberration that will will fade in a couple of decades. That connects rather strongly with the statistical norms for human life. He has plenty to answer for, so it is unsurprising that such a self-important person would project his own demise outward on other people and events.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.