Gingrich makes a great argument FOR same sex marriage.

Here we have Newt Gingrich blathering on about marriage:

GINGRICH: It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it’s a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. 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.

If “one man one woman only” marriage has historical roots driven deep into the bible (it doesn’t, more like one man to many women and slaves, but whatever), then it is a fundamentally religious notion.

When the government limits marriage to “one man one woman only” it infringes upon the free exercise of religion of people who believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

This is exactly what the First Amendment set out to prevent:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What of the religious freedoms of pagans, Newt? Maybe you think it’s a fundamental violation of our civilization (which makes no sense, Paganism is part of our civilization) but it is a fundamental violation of our constitution for the government to restrict marriage.

Thanks for making our case for us. That marriage is religious and therefore restrictions on it serve no secular purpose is a great argument in favor of removing those restrictions.

Learn more about Christina and follow her @ziztur.

About christinastephens
  • http://killedbyfish.blogspot.com feralboy12

    GINGRICH: It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman.

    For a few years. Then, it’s between a man and a different woman. For a few years. Then…
    I have this idea for a game show…

    • Nancy New, Queen of your Regulatory Nightmare

      Well, between a man and a woman, and then between a man and two women, although one of the women doesn’t know about it, then between a man and two women when both woemn do know about it and one of them’s pissed off about it… etc.

  • Randomfactor

    For a few years. Then, it’s between a man and a different woman. For a few years. Then…

    That, I would have no problem with. People divorce.

    It’s the overlap that’s the REAL problem with his record. (Not casting any stones, by the way).

  • timberwoof

    How is paganism a “fundamental violation of our civilization”? All Europeans—the people who built “our civilization”—were pagan before the Roman Church subjugated them.

    So Gingrich is attacking pagans and gays as threats to civilization, just as Jerry Fallwell did in the days after 9/11. What a santorum-filled asshole.

  • raven

    Cthulhu, that isn’t even close to correct.

    Biblical marriage is between a man and however many women he can round up. It was polygamous. Plus as many sex slaves as he could afford.

    King Solomon, a hero in the OT had 700 wives and 300 sex slaves.

  • raven

    Someone once asked Gingrich, “If marriage between a man and woman is a sacred xian institution, then which of your three marriages was the most sacred?

    Guy is a sociopathic hypocrite.

  • http://rant5k.blogspot.com Grikmeer

    Surely that’s an incentive for the FFRF to sue, then :D

  • http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com Ani Sharmin

    Thanks for making our case for us. That marriage is religious and therefore restrictions on it serve no secular purpose is a great argument in favor of removing those restrictions.

    Excellent point.

    Of course, they will then claim that, no, there are other supposedly secular reasons for why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

  • raven

    This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament,

    Xians only make up 28% of the world’s population.

    So what does the rest of the world do? Not get married?

    • Irreverend Bastard

      They live in sin, of course.

  • Tony

    I wonder if Newt has read these biblical foundations he’s speaking of? Betty Bowers deliciously and hysterically refutes the ‘traditional marriage’ argument claimed by theists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

  • Mark

    Government should not recognize marriage at all. Therefore recognizing homosexual marriage is a step in the wrong direction.

    • Aliasalpha

      I kinda like that idea, “If you kids can’t play nice with marriage, NONE of you will have it!”

    • http://shaunphilly.wordpress.coms Shaun

      By not recognizing marriage, would that imply all legal rights that one gets with marriage would disappear? Tax breaks, life/death decisions, etc?

      What government should do is simply allow consenting adults to enter into whatever legal entanglements they desire. That is, they should not interfere in marriage, but recognize it when it happens.

  • Quentin

    I’m fairly certain that if you asked Newt what defines a Pagan, he couldn’t tell you…

  • ‘Tis Himself, OM

    The reason why Gingrich has been married three times is he hasn’t found someone who loves him as much as he loves himself.

    • Aliasalpha

      You’d think he’d be in support of human cloning, eh?

  • turncoat

    Is there a rise in Paganism?

    I have not seen in any in my hometown, but maybe they are meeting secretly. Are there any distinguishing characteristics? Manners of dress?

    Figures. The beginning of the end of society as we know it, and I am the last to know.

  • steerpike

    The only statements made by Jesus regarding marriage involved noting that there is no such thing as divorce.

  • http://carlsagansdanceparty.wordpress.com Steven Olsen

    Most of what we call marriage comes from ancient Roman tradition. So..pagans.

  • http://carlsagansdanceparty.wordpress.com Steven Olsen

    Most of what we call marriage comes from ancient Roman tradition. So..pagans. I’m so glad that he will never be president.

  • http://shaunphilly.wordpress.coms Shaun

    I made a similar argument last year about gay marriage and its relationship to law and religion:

    http://shaunphilly.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/marriage-rights-and-religious-discrimination/

    I posted it as a sort of legal question, and in the comments a lawyer friend of mine explained that there is a legal problem with it, even though it sounds rational.

    I have thought for a long time that since we have already changed the definiton of marriage in this culture, from its religious roots of a property relationship, that people understanding the fairness of legal gay or even polyamorous marriage would not be a huge step.

    Apparently I’m not cynical enough

  • Leo

    That’s not a very good argument. “Don’t kill your neighbor just for the lulz” also has deep historical roots in the Bible, yet it’s not particularly religious.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X