Gingrich: Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman...Until The Man Tosses The Woman Aside For Another Woman
Loved this bit from a Jonathan Turley blog item:
Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from "drifting toward a terrible muddle." He said that he would be looking for ways to "defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible."Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages -- making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
Come on, is anyone's marriage affected in the slightest if the lady next door is married to a lady? Does anyone really think anyone's going to say, "Well, Honey, it's been a wonderful 22 years, but now that the lesbians are getting hitched, IT'S CURTAINS FOR OUR MARRIAGE"?
Hah. We straight people have done a bang up job here with marriage. Let's let the gay people give it a whirl. So far everything I know of that they touch becomes "fabulous" quick and in a hurry.
Seriously my parents property values went up when the neighborhood started becoming a "gay neighborhood" because they fixed all the houses up. I have friends who have been together 20+ years and are far more devoted than many married couples I know
Horse at June 27, 2011 8:16 AM
Oh how the mighty have fallen. I'm not sure what has caught up to Gingrich, if it's a personality disorder or just plain old hubris. Twenty years ago he was the face of modern conservatism, and he had a clear and consistent message as expressed in the Contract with America.
Now his positions on issues seem to be totally random, and they change from week to week. However, it really doesn't matter much since he can't get people to work for him anymore -- his entire campaign staff resigned a couple of weeks ago. It's unfortunate because he's a smart guy, but Gingrich has made himself irrelevant.
Cousin Dave at June 27, 2011 8:17 AM
Homosexuality isn’t natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
http://www.inrepair.net/2006/09/01/12-reasons-gays-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/?awesm=fbshare.me_AcO77&utm_content=fbshare-js-large&utm_medium=fbshare.me-facebook-post&utm_source=facebook.com
FutureDarkLady at June 27, 2011 8:18 AM
I look to Gingrich for morality like I look to the Kennedys for teetotalling.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 27, 2011 8:24 AM
It's sad that our political system has evolved into people concerning themselves with things that don't really affect them one way or another, making me think that common sense has gone the way of the hand-written letter. Why on earth do people care about what others do if it causes them no distress and does not put them in danger? If it's based on their religious ideologies then shouldn't they just feel satisfied with the thought that "god" will take care of it posthumously? (Go ahead, sit on your high horse for now). Absurdity.
Jess at June 27, 2011 8:58 AM
I heard one anti-gay argument this weekend: Next they will want polygamous marriages.
Yes, and it ain't no one elses business if I do. Polygamy is legal in much of the world, such as Nigeria. Why not here?
Why is it the same people who get all huffy-puffy about the righteousness of gay marriage sneer when polygamy is mentioned?
BOTU at June 27, 2011 9:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/27/marriage_is_bet.html#comment-2308291">comment from BOTUAgain, marry 62 women if you can support them all. But, you can only have Social Security for one of them.
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 9:10 AM
DarkLady.. Hundreds of species exhibit homosexual traits. Google the stats. Only one exhibits homophobic traits. Which is more natural?
As for polygamy you almost need to. I am married and both of is work. We can hardly pay our bills much less think about the time or afford the resources to have a family.
Horse at June 27, 2011 9:13 AM
I would like to point out that my post was sarcastic. The link clarifies that.
FutureDarkLady at June 27, 2011 9:33 AM
Horse, I think you may have misunderstood Dark Lady's post. Her link goes to an absolutely hilarious list of why anti gay marriage arguments make no sense.
sofar at June 27, 2011 9:35 AM
> you can only have Social Security for one of them.
Abolishing Social Security would work even better.
Snoopy at June 27, 2011 9:35 AM
I second what Snoopy just said.
Late last week, the Republican contenders were tripping all over themselves to make statements against gay marriage and to sign the 'Pro-Life' pledge. This is typical pandering to the fundies. Only Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson refused to sign the pledge.
Pirate Jo at June 27, 2011 9:49 AM
The only folks who care what Newt Gingrich thinks are in the MSM, so they can use him to denegrate conservatives. He has about as much viability among conservatives as Jon Huntsman. Which is to say, none.
Tommy at June 27, 2011 10:11 AM
Apologies. I was reading on a small cell phone screen that has an internet connection no faster than the speed of smell. Now I am on my computer I can see everything. My mistake.
Horse at June 27, 2011 10:17 AM
"Again, marry 62 women if you can support them all. But, you can only have Social Security for one of them."
Amy, I'd agree with you but given the society we live in, its inevitable that someone will bring a civil rights case in the courts to allow it. That whole equality deal.
At this point, I find the whole thing amusing. Its not a right if you have to ask the state for permission.
Sio at June 27, 2011 10:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/27/marriage_is_bet.html#comment-2308426">comment from SioWe give SS to ONE partner. That's equal. If your one partner wishes to share her payment with all your other partners, that's her business.
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 10:26 AM
You should be entitled to an amount of SS benefits, based on contributions. The benefits could be split up among 62 spouses.
More likely, guys would marry just a few women, or vice-versa. In countries where polygamy is legal (and properly so) men tend to marry just two to four women.
In traditional Thailand, men would often marry sisters. Indeed, sisters from better families would often settle on one husband.
BTW, as for bilking the taxpayers, I bet a lot of men and women get "married" to get survivor benefits, and with the gay option, that bilk route gets much wider.
We had one Alkon fan write in he would re-marry his ex-wife so she could collect open-ended VA medical benefits (as taxpayer expense).
Anyway, the main point is that the state has no right to determine how many husbands or wives an individual has.
BOTU at June 27, 2011 11:42 AM
I have read that the fundamentalist Mormon groups that still practice polygamy, frequently have their extra wives sign-up for ADC, WIC, and EBT as single mothers. I have no objection to how many wives they have. I just don't want to pay for them.
ken in sc at June 27, 2011 12:22 PM
The reason the mormon splinter groups get away with that is they are often the only people living in the given area and have government jobs handing out benifits to themselves
lujlp at June 27, 2011 2:28 PM
"Why on earth do people care about what others do if it causes them no distress and does not put them in danger? "
It's because humans have learned, over the course of millennia, that blatantly hypocritical behavior is a sign of narcissistic personality disorders that should disqualify that person from leadership positions.
Cousin Dave at June 27, 2011 6:22 PM
The one that I'm seeing with the MSM -- they are doing the best they can to put Romney, Gingrich, and other also-ran candidates front and center. They give as short a shrift to candidates such as Bachman, Cain, Paul as they can. If it is negative -- they run it, if it is positive -- it is dead.
So the conservative sheeple, that don't listen beyond the sound bites, will vote for Romney. The Tea Partiers -- for the most part -- aren't worried about the social stuff -- as long as it doesn't cost the government anymore money.
Jim P. at June 27, 2011 8:13 PM
"Why is it the same people who get all huffy-puffy about the righteousness of gay marriage sneer when polygamy is mentioned" - They also start sneering over incestuous marriage. Wonder why they have a problem with that as well
Redrajesh at June 28, 2011 5:57 AM
FutureDarkLady - great link. On the religious front, I recommend a book entitled "Jesus, Interrupted" - it does a great job illustrating the inconsistencies in the Good Book.
Mr. Teflon at June 28, 2011 9:44 PM
Leave a comment