You know the LGBT movement is on the verge of total victory when former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, says that conservatism must come to grips with the reality of marriage equality. Truth Wins Out had been very critical of Gingrich in 2012, even taking out a full-page ad in Roll Call blasting the former presidential candidate as a “spectacular hypocrite.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports on Gingrich’s latest — and welcome — comments:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he can accept the “reality” of marriage between same-sex couples as a “legal document issued by the state” — as strong a sign as any that the landscape for marriage equality has changed dramatically in the past year.
“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,” Gingrich told The Huffington Post in a story published on Thursday.
Gingrich “continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman,” Sam Stein and Jon Ward report, but “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.”
Of the change, though, Gingrich said, “I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with.”
Before social conservatives can “come to grips” they first need to “get a grip,” which might take some time. Still, Gingrich’s words are a wake-up call and will certainly take the wind out of the sails of anti-gay campaigners. His comments won’t help the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins raise money, and the National Organization For Marriage’s Brian Brown must be downright depressed.
If your message isn’t swaying Newt, who is listening?
The distinction between a ‘marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state’ would be based on the religious affiliation of the wedded couple, not their gender. Newt can continue believing that Catholic marriages are the only “real” marriages but he must realize that by saying that, he puts an atheist heterosexual couples marriage in the same category as an Presbyterian gay couples marriage. How nice of him to tolerate both of those types of “faux-marriage”.
Gingrich “continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman..” or in his case and many others like him ‘between a man and several women in a series, combined with chronic adultery and divorce’. What a horse’s a*s!
I agree Gary, This man cannot honour his own wedding vows! Why should I give a tinker’s curse what he approves of? Mom always says, don’t take advice from a loser.
As my dad always sed to say, Gary, there are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.
As I wrote elsewhere;
Newt Gingrich? Evolve? I thought all current reptiles were the end product of that particular chain of evolutionary succession. Apparently, science has discovered a new one, aptly named Saurus Subpetrus.
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. In a world where James dobson is considered a holy man, Pat robertson speaks to god, thousands of unnamed and invisible homosexuals become heterosexuals every day, and Maggie Gallagher defends marriage by attacking it, I suppose anything is possible.
As for your “evolution” on gay marriage? Myohmyohmyohmy. You’re admitting that all of your previous arguments were false, all the reasons DOMA had to be passed RIGHT NOW (1996) were false, and all of the marriage proponent arguments were true, even though those arguments NEVER changed? Especially the one about the difference between religious and civil marriage, a difference you personally claimed DID NOT EXIST? Or was it the one about the sanctity of marriage, where Ben and Paul getting married is putrid, while fornicating, adulterous Newtie fornicates and adulterizes and divorces his way through three women, but gets an annulment so he can get married in the Truly Moral Catholic Church?
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 a goat and the compassion of a rock. Not 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.