NOM brings new meaning to the term…

Strange Bedfellows: Cheers Gingrich win. Blasts Ron Paul.


"One doesn't need to be Jesus to discern and respond to certain evils. As members ..."

Not coincidentally….
"See the answer I gave you above. Jesus is God. Mark is not. Mark's expression ..."

Not coincidentally….
"Again, it's not about the righteous anger. I agree that righteous anger is needed. I ..."

Not coincidentally….

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chris

    Just brutal. NOM supporting a thrice-married swinger-wannabe?

  • What was that old saying…”Truth is stranger than fiction”

  • Not surprising really. Some folks seem willing to take Gingrich at his word and give him a second chance. Likewise, some are bothered by Paul’s libertarian view that if 50 states have gay marriage, as long as the Federal Government isn’t involved, it’s no great deal. Some actually seem to be seeing things that way.

    • Manwe

      I think this sums up why NOM said what is said.

      Newt has problems out the wahzoo (is that how you spell that??), but I have never really been comfortable with either Ron Paul or libertarian views in general. He has never appealed to me.

    • What’s better though? Entrusting a man who is a serial offender against marriage with the task of defending that very sanctity he repeatedly violated? Or trusting a man whose been in the same monogamous marriage for 53 years, states that the sacrament of marriage predates government, and refuses to grant the federal government authority over the institution of marriage – a view in direct opposition to the gay marriage advocates who precisely want to make this a federal case in order to mandate gay “marriage” and set a legal precedent to punish those who don’t unreservedly approve thus striking a huge blow against our religious freedom? By trying to make a federal case for marriage we also validate our opposition’s stance that marriage is indeed the jurisdiction of the highest level of government and open ourselves to a wider range of attack against marriage under the law.

    • Maiki

      If fifty states *want* gay marriage, how are you going to prevent the delegates from those 50 states from implementing it at a federal level? It is not a libertarian/nonlibertarian issue, it is a “rule of democracy” issue. As support against gay marriage decreases, centralized solutions means “you get nothing — majority rules”. Your options are making some sort of “Supreme Court” argument — which isn’t going to happen — or do it at the state level.

  • orthros

    Of all the irrational support in this campaign so far, none surprises me so much as the devotion of Evangelicals for Newt Gingrich.

    The entirety of the pros of Gingrich can be pretty much summed up as “he gives a great speech”.

    • John C

      What REALLY turns on evangelicals is politics, not religion.

      • Actually not. Truth be told.

    • Dan C

      In fairness to Evangelicals, I suspect that many of them, as Born Again folk, project their own personal conversions and states in life (divorced) as something they identify with Newt.

      • Or they may take seriously the idea that forgivness is something we should practice, and not a cheap trick to manipulate in order to further justify trashing a politician we wouldn’t vote for in any event. Just a hunch.

        • Dan C

          Forgiveness and eligibility for the Presidency are two vastly separate concerns.

          In fact, it may be obvious to some that Gingrich’s past, no matter one’s acceptance of his new marriage, is too distracting for a President.

          These are acceptable criteria.

          • They are two different things, aren’t they. Which is why it would be nice to see folks stop mixing them together. Of course one can look at a candidate’s character. If we consider his past sins, that’s fair. But when we speak of him as a ‘serial adulterer’ in the present tense, as if he still is, or predict that he will be, it’s a farce and a sham to say we’ve ‘forgiven’ anything; it’s nothing other than good old fundamentalism Catholic style, only in this case for mere political expediency rather than some twisted form of religious self-righteousness, which is actually worse if you think about it.

            • Dan C

              In terms of his marital history, which is tragic, by the way, and scandalous in its public nature. Everyone has hard times in a marriage. Quite frankly, prominent Catholic divorcees accepted by family values folks are not good for those times in which times are hard for a couple. Go watch Mark Wahlberg do an interview to discuss gratitude for grace. That is a humble posture. Despite forgiveness and conversion, Gingrich’s prominence and hardly rehabilitated public persona is detrimental to preserving marriages. Simply put, he is a bad example elevated as success. This is a criticism of both Gingrich for not wisely bowing out of the limelight for continued scrutiny of his misdeeds of the past. This is also criticism of those who elevate and purport “family values” because elevating him places his misdeeds in the context of standard part of “the successful poweful man.”

              Suggesting that he would do “marriage” and the faith more by being out of the spotlight is not a failure of forgiveness, it is an act of prudential judgement that the faith would be better served with a more humble position for Mr. Gingrich than that of presidential candidate.

              He can make his means any of a number of ways. This public display is not required, is driven much by ego, and puts on the public stage the complex story of American Catholic marriage and divorce. For the prudent and faithful Catholic, rejecting Gingrich as a Presidential candidate based on his personal history can be directly an attempt to promote the faith preserve marriage.

              Its not just about “forgiveness” for someone of such public stature.

              • Again, it’s how we say it. I’m all for looking at character as a major factor in picking a candidate. But we must be careful. To look at Newt’s overall track record and decide, for whatever reason, he won’t do is fair. To accuse him of things in the present tense if we don’t know he’s guilty, or to simply say ‘he will’ do thus and such in the future, crosses the line.

                Likewise, it’s fair to disagree. People can see it differently, and conclude different things. There shouldn’t be a head shaking ‘there’s obviously something wrong with *them* for not seeing it this way.’ There’s some logical reasons why a group like that would go ahead and support Gingrich over Paul. I may not disagree, but it isn’t hard to figure. If I think it is, it might say more about my views on the topic than I care to admit.

      • Thomas R

        I think this makes sense in a way. I was born in Arkansas and many there were willing to forgive even Clinton’s failures if he was properly apologetic. (In fairness to Mr. Shea I think some of his issue is that Gingrich maybe doesn’t seem properly apologetic/repentant.)

        Anyway there’s something sweet about the Evangelical willingness to just wipe people’s slate clean, but there’s also maybe something a bit gullible or even unjust in it too. A con-man who dishonestly claims repentance can just con again. And the idea that the tendencies to certain actions just “disappear” is maybe unrealistic and possibly even dovetails into notions they can “cure homosexuality” by personal will/prayer alone.

  • Bro AJK

    I think NOM misses much of the fact that Rep Paul’s stance comes from a states’ rights view.

  • I think NOM, and other single-issue advocacy groups (NRA, NOW, etc…), look upon the candidates less like human beings and more like the means necessary to advance their own ends with the utmost efficiency. Hence, it makes perfect sense that NOM would back a person like Gingrich at the expense of Paul every bit as much as it makes sense for NOW to support a man like Clinton. Honesty, fidelity and humility are all virtues that fall quite outside those groups’ specific aims and are therefore irrelevant.

  • Newt Gingrich would support federal legislation that protects marriage.

    Ron Paul wold not support federal legislation to protect marriage meaning that gay marriage would be established by his lack of action if he were president.

    Gingrich’s personal failings with adultery in the past do not mean he has ever supported or will support gay marriage. What is insane about NOM recognizing this?

    • Consistency101

      Subsidiarity. Do it. I can guarantee you with the media and Hollywood agenda in favor of gay marriage it is only a matter of time before laws are passed. Keeping the Federal government out of it is the only way to keep moral objectors safe from anti-discrimination lawsuits and moral exemptions.

    • ds

      They should rename themselves the National Organization Against Gay Marriage. They have no problem with people trashing and disrespecting marriage unless they happen to be gay.

      • Chris M

        As someone who is completely against gay “marriage”, I agree with you here, ds.

  • Dave

    “Newt Gingrich would support federal legislation that protects marriage.”

    Even if so, Gingrich would be totally ineffective in stopping gay marriage, and in fact would very probably be a boon for the other side, because of his past.

    Ron Paul supports traditional marriage as much, if not more, than any other candidate, but he is not willing to run roughshod over the Constitution to get what he wants. What a refreshing position!

  • Dan C

    I think the faith-based conservative (such as those at NOM) would have a wee bit more savvy than to embrace an establishment Republican who will use the issue to garner votes (like Karl Rove) much like abortion.

  • Tom

    I find nothing wrong here at all — much less insane. The group identifies five categories that it uses to measure candidates in respect to their position on marriage. Gingrich meets all five. Paul does not. Why is that insane? If the group had based its endorsements solely on the personal lives of candidates then maybe the three-time married Gingrich would be disqualified. It is also clear that gay marriage is perceived as the biggest threat to marriage (but no where is this listed as the groups only agenda). So, the fact that it is front and center, here is not a problem and the fact that Gingrich is divorced does not mean they don’t see divorce as a problem either. It truly is apples and oranges.

    • rakowskidp

      Is *Santorum* really worse than Gingrich on this issue? Has he not also signed all the requisite pledges and promises to protect marriage?

  • Tominellay

    …wondering if today’s push for government recognition of homosexual marriage is somehow related more to employee benefits packages and income tax deductions than to anything else…

  • Richard C.

    Ron Paul is reported to have declared himself against all state licensure of marriage, in August 2011.

    Because the State has a duty to foster and protect marriage, this is not a correct position from a Catholic point of view. It makes complete sense that NOM is objecting to Paul’s stance on gay marriage, which is a mere corollary to his broader error.

    • Tominellay

      I don’t agree…I think that marriage is a sacrament and the Church and the churches can and should handle marriages. I’m just guessing, but I’ll bet the state became involved in more recent times, and didn’t always license or regulate marriage.
      The problem, once again, is that people like to use government force against other people. The government is all too ready to assume jurisdiction. I think Paul is right, and the government should walk away.

      • I don’t think so. What do you mean by “I’ll bet the state became involved in more recent times, and didn’t always license or regulate marriage”? You mean in America? Throughout history? In the tradition of the Christian West? By state do you mean a secular nation state, a kingom, empire? How does this view of ‘let the governmetn go its way and we’ll go ours’ square against the Church’s approach to politics, political involvement, and the role of government? Just curious, since several statements there left me wondering.

        • Ghosty

          Actually, the Catholic tradition in the West was that the state had no involvement marriage. Rather it was an ecclesial matter for ecclesial courts. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation, with the disavowal of Marriage as a Sacrament, that it became a state issue. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “The History of Marriage”:

          “Under the Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments. Although Luther declared that marriage was not a sacrament but a “worldly thing”, all the Protestant sects have continued to regard it as religious in the sense that it ought normally to be contracted in the presence of a clergyman. Owing to the influence of the Lutheran view and of the French Revolution, civil marriage has been instituted in almost all the countries of Europe and North America, as well as in some of the states of South America.

          The state is morally obligated to uphold traditional marriage, just as any entity to morally obligated to oppose sin. This doesn’t mean that marriage is naturally within the realm of the secular government, however.

          Peace and God bless!

          • Ghosty

            Darn lack of an edit button! Everything after the bold is my writing, and the bold is obviously added by me.

            • No problem those rascally edit buttons! Good point there about the influence of the French Revolution. Though I wonder if the idea pre-secular was as cut and dry, either/or as our modern understanding of secular vs. religious would suggest.

    • Ghosty

      My state is about to legalize gay marriage in the name of “fostering and protecting marriage”. Not civil unions, or shared benefits, but outright gay marriage. This will continue to happen across the country precisely because of the mindset that the government has a duty to “foster and protect” marriage; since government takes this duty seriously, and since gay marriage is more and more accepted in popular culture, the government will impose it on those of us with a better-ordered moral compass.

      This is the policy that NOM tacitly supports when it argues that the government should impose federal laws banning gay-marriage: they accept that the government can impose laws that force the population to accept certain forms of marriage, and the gay-marriage lobbyists readily agree.

      Peace and God bless!

  • Richard C.

    There are two reasonable federal actions with respect to same-sex marriage. Because states license marriage, there is a need (1) to prevent SSM being imposed through federal laws or constitutional claims on states that don’t want it. Because Federal law grants certain benefits based on marital status, it is necessary (2) to deny federal recognition of SSM for tax purposes, spousal benefits, and other privileges extended to marriage. Because marital status is a Federally protected non-discrimination category, (3) such non-discrimination protection should not be expanded to include SSM.