Thrice Married Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage "Outrageously Wrong"

Serial adulterer and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is "outraged" over the "power" exercised by the Iowa Supreme Court in their landmark decision that struck down the state law limiting marriage to different-sex couples.

The former House speaker—speaking at the University of Georgia's law school on Tuesday—says he was astonished by a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in that heartland state.

Gingrich calls the decision "outrageously wrong" and says it demonstrated "judicial arrogance."

Gingrich, who is an entrenched foe of gay rights legislation, would know a thing or two about "family values". Gingrich has been married three times, divorcing one wife when she was recovering from cancer, divorcing another when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and, court documents revealed both times he had a much younger mistress. Talk about "outrageously wrong"  ...

Gingrich Talks About Gay Marriage [WTVM] 

Some Background ....
Newt Gingrich Threatens '08 Run [R20]
Hypocritical Gingrich Admits Affair [R20]
Falwell "Praises" Gingrich [R20]

Comments

[Nathan James]

This from the man who once shut down the federal government for three days because President Clinton wouldn't let him ride in the front of Air Force One! We know all about Newt's affairs with young mistresses, but I think the day will come when some street trade has a press conference about Newt's secret rendezvous in DuPont Circle.

Methinks he protesteth too much.

[FREELEO]

Isn't his sister gay?

[Andy Niable]

Well, I guess he is sort of the spokesperson for Failed Marriages, so I guess he would know, right?

Yes, FreeLeo, Candace Gingrich is his sister, and quite Lesbian. She wrote quite an eloquent (and public) letter to him recently.

[alicia banks]

ditto

this bloated bigot put the hippo in hypocrite!

if marriage was so sacred, there would be no divorce/alimony etc

peace
ab

[Luther]

This from someone who has made the 'institution' a mockery with his own marriages? He is setting himself up for a run for the WH in 2012 with all this pandering to the far right wing of the GOP.

[Gregory]

It was disappointing to read this post, which launched an ad hominem attack on Gingrich rather than identifying, much less countering, the real argument he was making.

His point is that it was "outrageously wrong" for such a transformative societal change to be imposed in Iowa by a handful of elites in the judicial branch through an antimajoritarian process, rather than by the legislature through a majoritarian process representative of the people. Or more colloquially, he is saying that judges should be interpreting law rather than making law, and that when they make law by requiring licenses to be issued to same-sex couples contrary to the express terms of a State statute, they are poaching on the legislature's turf. Agree with that argument or not, but those who favor same-sex marriage should not ignore or underestimate it, because its strength will surely be tested in court challenges in other States that similarly limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Gingrich was ALSO saying that while Iowa did it the WRONG way, Vermont (which established same-sex marriage through legislative supermajorities overriding the governor's veto) did it the RIGHT way: "The people of Vermont have every right to elect the legislators they want and if they disagree with this decision they have every right to replace them and so it is the people's branch overriding the governor, who's elected, and it's not an isolated imposition by the elite. Even for people who don't agree with the outcome, it's a much better process."

Undoubtedly Gingrich supports marriage only in its traditionally-defined sphere and opposes same-sex marriage. He is also an excellent tactician who rightly perceives that accomplishing gay marriage through the legislative process will, in most States, be much more difficult that doing so through court challenges, especially if other courts begin to follow the Iowa Supreme Court's lead. That is precisely why he is emphasizing the separation-of-powers doctrine, criticizing Iowa's process and praising Vermonts's--to bully other State courts of last resort to defer to, and punt the issue to, their respective State legislatures.

Ridiculing Gingrich the man for being an awful husband is neither here nor there, and is tiresome to boot. Show us examples where Gingrich the politician has praised activist judges for striking down statutes that disfavored conservatives, and I'll show you REAL hypocrisy.

"Gregory", your conservative talking points are quite stale. The courts, legislature and exceutive branches are all equal branches of government. The "handful of elites" you refer to were duly appointed by the (Republican) executive branch and are charged with interpreting and vetoing the actions of the two branches. And for what it's worth, your conservative friends are blasting the Vermont legislature for doing their job and vetoing the governor.

I question anything Gingrich says on "traditionally-defined" marriage given his history and given the evolution of "marriage" from polygamy to chattel to its present form . You sound enamored with this "excellent tactician" who shut down the entire US government (and lost) and investigated one president's adultery with an intern while he also fooled around with one. Keep telling yourself that. -RM

[Chad Montgomery]

Gregory, umm sweety...
Newt Gingrich is a liar and hypocrite. It doesn't matter what he said. We still aren't listening to the man who had a mistress while he lead the impeachment against Bill Clinton.

But thanks for trying to dazzle us with your knowledge on the separation of powers. But the Iowa decision does not violate judicial review. Conservatives and Republicans just don't like it when judges do their jobs.

And I beleive it is a judge's law to INTERPRET The law as they did in Brown v Bd of Ed or any other numbers of cases. Now seriously, the Log Cabin Republicans are calling you.

[Brandon]

Does "traditionally defined marriage" include trading in dying wives for younger models? Or cheating with the secretaries?

How can you talk about "traditionally defined marriage" when that is your reference point? I want to talk about Newt Gingrich's marriages if he wants to say i can't get married.

Oh and who cares if a conservative Republican astro turfer is "disappointed" to read a black gay progressive viewpoint. We're still here aand your separation of powers argumenst is still inadequate because the Iowa Supreme Court was perfectly within its rights. Just like the Iowa legislative leaders are within their rights NOT to allow a vote on a marriage amendment. The court has already said its unconstitutional.

LOL @ "traditionally defined marriage"