Gingrich Equates Gay Marriage to Paganism Like It’s A Bad Thing…

Newt is awesome. He is so arrogantly oblivious to his own hypocrisy that sometimes I suspect his whole campaign is run by Stephen Colbert. He is a gift to political comedians everywhere, and for once he said something sensible about marriage (amidst his usual sea of hypocritical crazy).

The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization. – Newt Gingrich

I bolded the part he got right. The last bit is just more of his brand of crazy.

Credit: Gage Skidmore

It’s totally true. The majority of Pagans, if elected into public office, would take a stand for their principles and support same-sex and polyamorous marriage, just as they do as private citizens. If Paganism had it’s way the government would get out of the marriage business and leave domestic partnership contracts in the hands of citizens. We believe that people should live honest, happy lives with the people they love, and that you shouldn’t be concerned with other people’s bedrooms.

I don’t understand why Newt has a problem with this. I mean, if he were Pagan, he’d have been counseled by peers and elders to be an honest polyamorist rather than a dishonest serial cheater. He obviously can’t live up to Christian fidelity, and we could have given him other options that would have helped him live an honest life. Although, his habit of dumping his lovers when they get sick would not be condoned, and he would likely be criticized loudly for it by the Pagan community. We’re a vocal bunch, and care more about your being a good person than simply wearing a religious label and showing up to service.

I took a quick look today and the only Catholic article on Gingrich I could find discussing his colorful history with marriage ended with some vaguely supportive notes that Callista is dragging Newt to Mass regularly. I couldn’t find any condemnation from his own faith community for Gingrich’s blatant flouting of Christian forms of marriage. In searching for articles I found a lot of writers celebrating Newt’s Catholicism, and a few condemning his racist statements.

Gingrich’s win in South Carolina over Romney just proves that all this talk over family values and “traditional marriage” is nothing compared to having your team win. If Christian forms of marriage were that important, and family values a true concern for the Republican party, then Romney would already have the GOP nomination sewn up. That fact that he doesn’t, and this clown that lies to and deceives the people he swore to love and honor before his God still has a fighting chance, just goes to show that this marriage and family talk is empty rhetoric. Smoke and mirrors.

I’m proud that my faith is so closely associated with same-sex marriage in the beady, little eyes of Newt Gingrich. Because same-sex marriage, polyamory and Paganism all have something in common: we believe in honesty.

It’s a value Newt lacks. Just ask wives 1 & 2.

About Star Foster

Polytheistic Wiccan initiated into the Ravenwood tradition, she has many opinions. Some of them are actually useful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000451145781 MrsBs Confessions

    Agreed on each and every word.

  • Alan Sheridan

    *applause and laughter*  What I find ironic is that his wife (who was his mistress and helped break up his previous marriage) is dragging him to Mass.  She’s his religious example?  I thought Catholics didn’t go in for adultery?

    • Cassandra Ciardi

      newt was not catholic before callista.  the catholic church does not recognize marriages or divorces that take place outside the church.  in fact, if a catholic divorces but doesn’t go to the church for an annulment and gets remarried s/he is an adulterer.

  • Cassandra Ciardi

    i disagree a little with the whole romney bit but i don’t want to discuss that for fear of detracting from how freakin unbelievable awesome this posting is. 

    nice mixture of “the damned truth” and much needed humor :)

  • Silvergryphon66

    Amen Star! I’m sharing this and will out myself to many in the process but it’s gotta be spread!

  • Cassandra Ciardi

    newt was not catholic before callista.  the catholic church does not recognize marriages or divorces that take place outside the church.  in fact, if a catholic divorces but doesn’t go to the church for an annulment and gets remarried s/he is an adulterer.

    • http://www.patheos.com/ Star Foster

      If that’s true, it’s ridiculous.

      • Cassandra Ciardi

        it are.  i’m a recovering catholic.  and if you do get an annulment then all your children are illegitimate.  i couldn’t make this up.

        • Cassandra Ciardi

          sorry for the double post – i was trying to respond to alan and well, i’ve now made a mess

        • http://twitter.com/Fernwise Fern Miller

           Canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law specifically affirms the legitimacy of children born in both valid and putative marriages (objectively invalid, though at least one party celebrated in good faith).   So – children of annulled marriage ARE considered legitimate.

          • Cassandra Ciardi

            my bad – i just looked it up.  in my defense that was put in place in 1983 just as i was “no longer catholic” and these rules i learned previous to that; from my grandmothers and priests of their age range.

            thanks – i’ve bookmarked that one

      • http://www.arokk.me/ Arokk Darkkstarr

        It’s very true, Star.

      • http://www.120squarefeet.blogspot.com/ Laura M. LaVoie

        It is strue. I was also raised Catholic. I knew a guy who annulled a 20-some year marriage and his grown children were no longer considered ligit. 

        I also know someone who’s parents tried to get married in the Catholic church, but because his dad had been married before they wouldn’t let him.  His mom’s uncle was a bishop in the archdiocese and he said he could do it for the right price. They got married in the Greek Orthodox church instead. 

      • kenneth

        It is true, and moreover, it is the one fatal weakness in the “save marriage” argument for which they have absolutely no rebuttal.  They, and especially Catholic bishops, insist that gay marriage must be barred by civil law because such marriages cannot be valid. And yet, anyone, at least any Catholic, who remarries without having gotten a proper annulment (a legal fiction which says the marriage never really happened), their marriage is nothing more than a sanctioned adulterous relationship. That’s the real deal in Canon Law.  Despite that fact, you won’t find a single “save marriage” activist proposing, or even agreeing to, a measure calling for a ban on marrying previously divorced folks!

  • Blueinferno

    I find this man offensive, being that I am apart of the Pagan/LGBT community. They are so crazy on “protecting” marriage. If they were that worried about it they would outlaw divorce. Its time to stay out of people’s personal lives and let them live free and love who they wish. Marriage in my opinion, is more about benefits then anything. Why get married if you are already together, maybe with children. You have a car, a house, and bills to pay together. You are practically married without a certificate of marriage.   

  • Kim Franco

    Wow, I honestly hadn’t thought of it that way. I had first gotten mad about him saying that, but when you put it this way… :-) Thanks for making my day!

  • DragonMoon

    I feel that a church would have the right to not marry gays and lesbians… I can understand how Catholics feel (along with other christian religions)this would go against churh teachings.  The Catholic church does actually “marry ” anyone… they perform the Rite of Matrimony( not marriage) it is a sacrement just like Holy Baptism First Communion etc…. they have that right, it is their church and their rules….. the U.S. Constitution guarantees this.

    Having the government wanting to define marriage and make it an amendment is absolutly wrong, especially when they all use the christian bible as the argument to make it so… first off church of any kind should not be involved with govenment, and should not be helping to form policies. Secondly, the U.S. Constitution states that we have the right to worship (or not) they way we want and that government cannot establish or promote any religion, therefore afforded freedom from religious persecution. Therefore, the politicians and law makers are infringing on our rights as citizens of the USA as defined by th Constitution when they start spewing about defining marriage basing it on the christian bible.

    This country was NOT founded on a Christian/Judeo philosophy, in fact many of those people we consider Founding Fathers were not christian but Dieists, and this country was founded on principles of the Free Masons not the bible.  Thomas Jefferson wrote ( I am paraphrasing) that no man of government should come between a man and his “god”, and that we all should be free to speak and worship as we wish.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the government would read the Constitution a little more and spew rhetoric less?? 

  • http://www.themonthebard.org/ Themon the Bard

    I’m puzzled by why no one has yet commented that the BIBLICAL model of marriage is one man and as many women as he can afford.

    • Corc Hamr

      The argument I keep hearing on this is based on the epistles of Saul (Paul), who stated that certain church leaders were to be husbands of “but one wife”. Never minding that he is speaking of church leaders, most modern churches I’ve been a member of or visited interpret this to include anyone who is a Christian, because as the church is already the Bride of Christ, more than one lover detracts from attention to Christ. At least, that’s the rational argument I hear most often. The other argument, “It’s just wrong” or “It’s against God’s will” has never really been explained to me. 

  • P. Sufenas Virius Lupus

    Hear, hear, dear friend!

    Needless to say, as Former Speaker Gingrich stated, I’m a natural Pagan in every way, then–perhaps even “more natural” than many other Pagans in this particular regard!  ;)

  • A.C. Fisher Aldag

    At first, I was actually giving Mr. Gingrich the benefit of the doubt.  He was in favor of lowering taxes and cutting pork programs, so I thought his former problems with being an immoral alley cat may have been resolved.  This latest statement of his finally blew it, not only for me, but for nearly every other conservative that I know. 

    Hey, Mr. Gingrich, over 75% of people who self-define as Gay work for a living and pay taxes.  I’m assuming  that those who don’t are mostly children or retired elders.  These are the Americans who are helping to support this country.  Alienating all of ‘em, and their friends, relatives, and neighbors, in order to pander to the less than 8% of the Republican party who self-identifies as far-right, ain’t gonna get you the nomination.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

    • kenneth

         He didn’t shoot himself in the foot. He shot the GOP in the foot.  New’s loon constituency must be a hell of a lot bigger than 8% of the party. He’s polling ahead of Romney. In many of these earlier primary states, he’s bigger than Christ on a custom Harley.  If he wins the nomination, Obama, as damaged as he is, won’t even have to get out of his pajamas to win in November. 
         It’s especially amusing that his mob of angry hee-haws buys his tripe about being an anti-establishment outsider and standing for something. He’s one of the crown princes of the Washington establishment and a greasy little hustler who stands for nothing besides his own financial and political profit. He’d shill for whatever cause he thought would put him ahead. If Chinese communism took off in the polls, he’d squeeze his girth into a big and tall custom Mao suit. If pan-Arab nationalism offered a better buck and platform, he’d be a Baathist….

  • http://ladyimbriumsholocron.wordpress.com/ ladyimbrium

    I still don’t understand why any of the GOP candidates are running on a “family values” platform. The current president (no matter what issues you may or may not have with him) pretty clearly adores his family and there isn’t even a hint that he has been unfaithful to his wife. This election’s far-right candidates can’t compete on the traditional far-right turf. Kind of ironic, really.

  • Hinduhumanrights

    It’s a bit like condemning universal free health care like that’s a bad thing. At the same time these lot idolise Ayn Rand and the idea of selfishness being a virtue. When you look at it that way then the thin line between Charles Manson’s prison cell and the outside world becomes dangerously transparent.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X