Newt Gingrich Starts To Evolve

Jim Burroway

December 20th, 2012

Republican Former House Speaker and GOP presidential candidate New Gingrich took time out from writing a book of historical fiction (can he really tell the difference?) to discuss with HuffPo’s about what he thinks went wrong in the 2012 Presidential election. Buried deep into the article is this nugget:

On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state” — the latter being acceptable.

“I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with,” he said, noting that the debate’s dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

Stepping back from the political, Gingrich noted that he has a personal stake in the gay marriage debate. His half-sister works at the Human Rights Campaign. He has gay friends who’ve gotten married in Iowa. The man who once compared same-sex marriage to paganism is now worried that the Republican Party could find itself trapped in a bygone era on the matter.

There are limits to Gingrich’s evolution his grip on reality — he thinks that either he or Texas Gov. Rick “Oops” Perry would have done better against Obama than Romney. But even with his tenuous hold on reality he acknowledges of “reality” of legal same-sex marriages.

One thing I find revealing is this:

“I didn’t think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act,” he said. “It didn’t seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing.”

DOMA was passed on the premise that without it, same-sex marriage would sweep the nation, which is why it had to be passed right now.  Today he admits that he didn’t think it was inevitable after all. It just goes to show how truly cynical the law really is.



December 20th, 2012

I don’t care about a church wedding at all. I do care about federal recognition and benefits.

Um, and it is “Newt” Gingrich, and the word is “tenuous”.

Michael C

December 20th, 2012

“…the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state”

I sure should hope so. When has a religious ceremony ever been a requirement for civil marriage?

Ben In Oakland

December 20th, 2012

Gingrich? Evolve? I thought all current reptiles were the end product of that particular chain of evolutionary succession.

You would have done better against Obama? Honey, you didn’t even do well against R-money. Ooh. i made a poem.
Admittedly, R-money came in second and Obama came in next to last. So, maybe.

As for your “evolution” on gay marriage? Myohmyohmyohmy. You’re admitting that all of your previous arguments were false, and all of the marriage proponent arguments were true, even though those arguments didn’t change? Could this have, perhaps, a teensy bit more to do with your party’s trying to use marriage as a wedge issue, and this time, failing rather handily?

Newtie, you’re simply the same soulless, self-serving, lacking-in-principle hypocrite you’ve always been, with the morals of an alley cat and the compassion of a rattlesnake. Niot surprisingly, very much like the party whose soul seems to resemble yours, but without the smarts.

This is the reason for your failure, not Rmoney.


December 20th, 2012

I thought Newt believed marriage was between a man and whichever mistress he dumped the last wife for.


December 21st, 2012

Except that its an interesting distinction; love under god (in a church), and love otherwise.
Because love, matrimonial love, is related/connected to God.
That in the sense of God, and our understanding of God through love, that the two are inseparable, always have been inseparable, and always will be inseparable.


December 21st, 2012

Newt loves to evolve away from traditional, biblical morality. For example, twice now he’s evolved away from his married spouse in favor of his mistress.

No, he’s not a cynical, calculating politician…. perish the thought! :)


December 21st, 2012

I love how Newt suddenly finds that this distinction between civil and religious marriage exists, seeing as his “marriage” to his current “wife” – the one who took $$ in exchange for sexual favors over the 6-year period she was on salary to the Speakers’ office and undermining his then-marriage – was actually celebrated twice, and only the first time was the legal one. Calista is such a good Catholic – except for the whole adultery thing, of course – that she insisted their marriage be recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, requiring Newt not only to convert, but to renounce his previous two marriages as immoral mistakes and label his children are bastards. This took place several years after he dumped Marianne for Calista.


December 28th, 2012

Saying that Newt is evolving is like saying a chameleon evolves when it changes colour to match its environment. Anyone who thinks Newt Gingrich evolves is as delusional as he. If the tide of public opinion suddenly turned dark and began mirror that of Iran or Saudi Arabia, he would be lighting the burning torches used to roast us.

I first came across him when I was a history major at the same college where he was teaching history. He was a narcissistic swine then, and nothing in his public life since has given me reason to change my opinion. Based on a couple of interviews of his half sister, it is pretty clear they are not close.

It might interest people that Newt is the only one in his family who pronounces his last name in the English fashion. Rather than Ging-riCH, it is pronounced in the German fashion of Ging-ricK. People from his hometown who knew the family also use the German-style pronunciation.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts


Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.