Newt shows his "true colors"...

During the NH debates this weekend, Newt Gingrich had the following quote about gay marriage:

“But there's a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we're therefore going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis. The sacrament of marriage was based on man and woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization, and is something worth protecting and upholding.”

Click to expand...

The question was posed from a stance of government sanctioning or condemnation of Gay Marriage as a legal institution, not as an assertion that the theological institution of marriage was incorrect...

Last time I looked, the legal, government-regulated, contract-law-based aspects of "marriage" were NOT a sacrament--in fact, classifying an aspect of contract law or bureaucratic power as a "sacrament" would seem to me to be a direct violation of the 1st amendment prohobition on the establishment of a state-endorsed religion.

So either Newt is INTENTIONALLY clouding the issue by conflating contract law with sacred rituals or he REALLY DOES consider contract law to be a sacrament.

If the first is the case, then he has shown his colors as the duplicitous, globalist, opportunistic political scumbag that many of us believe him to be, and is actively working to divide, segregate, and disempower the People through manufacturing philosophical controversy where none exists, rather than working to UNITE and EMPOWER the People of this nation by speaking the truth.

If the second is the case, then Newt has shown what sort of person he REALLY is spiritually. There is only ONE deity that I know of in the history of man who might consider contract law and bureaucratic authority to be a sacrament, and that is Mammon. 'Nuff sed...

I don't know about you folks, but I don't think EITHER of these possibilities is the sort of person I want as Commander-in-Chief.

Good points.

But, I think it is much simpler: he's an establishment, status-quo insider who will say whatever he thinks will help him get elected. A slimy, lying, panderer--until he's elected. Then its off to the plunder.

I do like your analytic skills at dissassembling his stance, though. Keep it up. The obvious point is that Gingrich spouted all that nonsense without thinking it through--because getting it right and being sincere wasn't his purpose in saying it.

For anybody who wants to know more about Gingrich, just hunt up the YouTube videos on him. His whole slimy, ethics-violating past is captured in news video from the '90s.

Here in the Bible Belt, I frequently hear about the "sanctity of marriage" when it comes to same sex unions. I just ask the person for their baptism license, or in which courthouse they filed their certificate of salvation.

More often than not, they "get it", and eventually agree that government has no marriage regulating marriage.

KBCraig said:

Here in the Bible Belt, I frequently hear about the "sanctity of marriage" when it comes to same sex unions. I just ask the person for their baptism license, or in which courthouse they filed their certificate of salvation.

More often than not, they "get it", and eventually agree that government has no marriage regulating marriage.

Click to expand...

Brilliant. I'll remember that, and I will be stealing that line with your permission...

Dreamer said:

Brilliant. I'll remember that, and I will be stealing that line with your permission...

Click to expand...

Words are free, so feel free!

I am not in favor of state sanctioned homosexual marriage, but I also am not in favor of state sanctioned heterosexual marriage. It's a personal decision between two consenting adults.

Don't have cites for it right now, but I had read that the requirement of a license started out to recognize "interracial" marriages. A ridiculousness from the start.

What true colours are there to show? You imply that he hides his beliefs... Newt, President Obama, and all the Republican candidates hold the same belief on same-sex marriage/unions. Their all too wrapped up in religion and placating the religious minority, to care about anyone but their selves, and their own zealot brethren. Granted, some candidates might not be open about it, or might try and sugarcoat their views, but their all the same.

I cannot comment further, it is with great restraint that I don't make a ten page long reply with extensive citation as is...

"They're all too wrapped up in religion and placating the religious minority"....religious minority? Where exactly are you located that the religious are a minority?

Of course Newt believes that marriage is sacred and should be between and man and woman.

All 3 of his marriages and affairs have been with women!!

There are a LOT of things that have 3000 years of history and tradition behind them, such as slavery. Hell, slavery is even A-OK in the bible, i.e. direct from the christian god's mouth. So if Newt is calling for only man-woman marriage due to 3000 years of tradition and whatnot, I wonder what his views are on slavery. Oh, and pirating, murder, ect.

And if he is so big on being against gays due to the bible, I wonder why he isn't following the rest of Leviticus' rules. Guess he's another cherry picker like most of them.

I think my biggest argument against the people arguing that it will cheapen the meaning of marriage for others is the fact that you can still get married in a Vegas chapel, or that people will Tivo the Kardashian wedding and spend hundreds of thousands on the tabloids about the inevitable divorce. How does a loving homosexual couple cheapen the institution, or even the religious sacrament, and yet these people are not up in arms about the other charades?

However, Newt is a laughably bigoted candidate in general. He once explained how he wanted to eliminate bilingual education "...so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto, ..."

He's also made plenty of other gratuitously sexist, racist, and rather hatefully charged remarks over the years. This latest outburst comes as no surprise.

I'm thinking a lot of the arguments for or against gay marriage miss the mark. They're fine arguments, as far as they go. But, they don't really address the crucial points.

The libertarian in me doesn't care whether gays marry. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Or, it wouldn't--if it weren't for what I consider crucial points.

I have a really big objection to being forced to recognize their marriage, which I think is one of their real goals. Meaning they don't really want to just marry. They want everyone else to agree with it. To validate it. To legitimize it. Using government to force others to accept and recognize their unions. Basically using government as a means of social change. This is a real problem in my view--using government to force social change. Not whether gays marry. Let them marry. But, since society hasn't reached broad agreement on the subject, don't force others to recognize it by government regulation. And, you know that regulation would come.

Another point I think is overlooked is benefits: Insurance. Social Security. Tax credits/deductions. I don't know that I have the list right; but whatever they are, they want them. My big objection to this is not that they shouldn't get them, but that some of those benefits shouldn't exist---for anybody. For example, there is no reason married hetero couples should be taxed differently than single heteros; its just social engineering and pandering by the government. If gay marriage continues to spread, they will be clamoring for more of a pie to which none are entitled, except the person it is taken from in the form of taxes or subsidies that shouldn't have been.


Government should get out of marriage. As I mentioned earlier, my current thinking is for government to decide disputes (courts) for divorce and custody, that sort of thing. Otherwise, this government involvement just seems another opportunity for government to provide favors to one group at the expense of another for re-election.

Shuban said:

I will oppose this sort of marriages. This is UN-natural.

Click to expand...

Tell that to nature. There are a number of animal species whose homosexual members mate for life, much like their heterosexual counterparts.

So for those of you who are against gay marriage, would you ALSO be against gay people buying a house, getting a business loan, leasing a car, retaining a lawyer, hiring a lawn service, engaging the services of a private detective, incorporating a business or any other manner of business contract type arrangements between consenting adults?

Because that is what you are doing.

And if memory serves, there was a government in Europe about 70 years ago that restricted the entering into contracts for people because of lifestyle (and for several other reasons too, like race, national origin, religious belief, or ethnicity).

Would you deny recognition of marriage to Hindus? Interracial couples? Inter-denominational couples? Pagans? Shinto? Muslims? Gypsies? Slavic people? Blacks? Poor people? People with PTSD? People diagnosed with ADHD? Diabetics? Blind people?

Where does it end?

But I think most of you are missing the REAL point I was trying to make, which was that Newt conflates contract law with a religious sacrament.

So either he is a duplicitous scumbag liar trying to confuse the REAL issue, or he actually BELIEVES that contract law IS a sacrament, which would point to the theory that he (and perhaps MOST of the high-level elected officials on BOTH sides of the isle) are actually acolytes of Mammon (or perhaps Moloch) the ancient Babylonian god of greed and lust for power--a god who, BTW, demands as part of it's worship, the ritual sacrifice of babies and virgins...

Citizen said:

I'm thinking a lot of the arguments for or against gay marriage miss the mark. They're fine arguments, as far as they go. But, they don't really address the crucial points.

The libertarian in me doesn't care whether gays marry. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Or, it wouldn't--if it weren't for what I consider crucial points.

I have a really big objection to being forced to recognize their marriage, which I think is one of their real goals. Meaning they don't really want to just marry. They want everyone else to agree with it. To validate it. To legitimize it. Using government to force others to accept and recognize their unions. Basically using government as a means of social change. This is a real problem in my view--using government to force social change. Not whether gays marry. Let them marry. But, since society hasn't reached broad agreement on the subject, don't force others to recognize it by government regulation. And, you know that regulation would come.

Another point I think is overlooked is benefits: Insurance. Social Security. Tax credits/deductions. I don't know that I have the list right; but whatever they are, they want them. My big objection to this is not that they shouldn't get them, but that some of those benefits shouldn't exist---for anybody. For example, there is no reason married hetero couples should be taxed differently than single heteros; its just social engineering and pandering by the government. If gay marriage continues to spread, they will be clamoring for more of a pie to which none are entitled, except the person it is taken from in the form of taxes or subsidies that shouldn't have been.


Government should get out of marriage. As I mentioned earlier, my current thinking is for government to decide disputes (courts) for divorce and custody, that sort of thing. Otherwise, this government involvement just seems another opportunity for government to provide favors to one group at the expense of another for re-election.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, and 110% for the bolded parts.

@OC for me; Earth. 6+Billion people. ~1 Billion Christians, far less for Islamic peoples, and less for Judaism. When I use 'religious minority' I imply those who follow the "main three".

@Dreamer; I think I love you; the type of love a man has for a fine cigar, not the other type of love, sorry.

Most everyone in my state's forum knows about my sexuality, hell, I have enough courage to post it openly in my forum signature. So, I wish to say a few things, some directed towards those who are against same-sex marriage, in any form, from minor disagreement, to blatant disagreement.

I've been a out, and proud person of my homosexuality since I was 13, I am currently 23 now; I've had to face anti-gay discrimination, and verbal abuse from religious family members, housing authorities, co-workers, job recruiters, every-day citizens when on the job to help save them, and from law enforcement on numerous occasions. And the latter part, only amplified when I OC, and I don't hide my sexuality in the least bit.

I tried running around with activist, and social groups before, trying to find a community where I could fit in with, who would accept me, and not ban me, or insult me. Churches, youth groups, political campaigns, forums on socioeconomic issues, etc. Never found a place within them.

That is, until I came across OCDO; My fellow Kentuckians haven't insulted me, haven't abused me, or tried to get me fired from a job, nor have they went about on rants against my sexuality. This forum is a place that I am welcomed, and fit in because I have a common ideology, shared with others; Open Carry for self-defense, home-defense, and other basic constitutional rights and needs.

Now, when I see someone saying their a Librarian, and don't really care if we have marriage or not, but goes into extreme detail, or accuses the gay community of wanting to shove our lifestyle on to others, and force others to accept us; you know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of how the anti-2A, and anti-gun groups take a small fraction of a community, and use it as an excuse to further their train of thought, and use it to bolster their own responses.

And those that say such, go into detail, or outright oppose gay marriage on any level, citing religious or science doctrines, past or present, or use their own opinions against it; I want you to look at the anti-gun lobby, and it's anti-2A groups, and tell me, are you truly any different from them with how you make an argument?

The Brady campaign, and others like it; They make science citations, use heavy personal opinion as to why they dislike our OC and other CC communities. They take a small fraction of the bad apples of our pro-gun communities, and use it as an example to impose greater and tougher laws against our constitutional rights. Oh, Citizen, I've seen many anti-gun people make statements worded much akin to your own, same basis of philosophy.

We all have our different opinions, and such, we're all entitled to our opinions; But, please, would it be too much to ask that we all use our efforts, strength, and typing abilities to promote the OC cause, and leave the banter about social issues to other forums to hash out?

It kinda gives me a sour taste in my mouth, to see a community so adamant about a constitutional right, and furthering that right, so determined to advance the cause; yet, go into detail about about why they dont like a certain social issue, or thing.

I may not always keep my opinions to myself, sometimes I feel passionate about saying something, and sometimes when I feel such, I let true colours fly; but I just ask that we keep non-OC opinions to our selves.

I know its a request that will fall on deaf ears, and holds no value to others; and I'll probably be trolled to death with responses; but I figured with others giving opinion, I would share my own, and give a basic list of reasons as to why I came here, and why it hurts me to see the bickering, or as some call it "argumentative".

-Mods; if this post is too "inflammatory", please consider deleting it. Thank you.

DrakeZ07 said:

So, I wish to say a few things, some directed towards those who are against same-sex marriage, in any form, from minor disagreement, to blatant disagreement.

Click to expand...

Now, when I see someone saying their a Librarian, and don't really care if we have marriage or not, but goes into extreme detail, or accuses the gay community of wanting to shove our lifestyle on to others, and force others to accept us; you know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of how the anti-2A, and anti-gun groups take a small fraction of a community, and use it as an excuse to further their train of thought, and use it to bolster their own responses.

Click to expand...

We all have our different opinions, and such, we're all entitled to our opinions; But, please, would it be too much to ask that we all use our efforts, strength, and typing abilities to promote the OC cause, and leave the banter about social issues to other forums to hash out?

Click to expand...

It kinda gives me a sour taste in my mouth, to see a community so adamant about a constitutional right, and furthering that right, so determined to advance the cause; yet, go into detail about about why they dont like a certain social issue, or thing.

Click to expand...

I may not always keep my opinions to myself, sometimes I feel passionate about saying something, and sometimes when I feel such, I let true colours fly; but I just ask that we keep non-OC opinions to our selves.

Click to expand...

There are a few things you've said that I just don't get.

You seem to think we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with homosexuality. I will not impose my personal views of gays on anyone, but I would equally expect to be allowed to have my personal view, and not be forced to support or accept something I don't agree with. If you or anyone else lives this lifestyle, fine by me. Just don't demand that I accept it.

If you don't want people to have or express their personal opinions, then by that logic, you shouldn't have your sexual status in your signature, as its social status isn't relevant to the Constitutionally protected rights that this board is devoted to.

Drake, I'm not flaming you, and it really doesn't matter to me if you are gay or not. You are a human being first, and a supporter of a mutual cause. Just don't become mad when people don't support your sexual orientation.

DrakeZ07 said:

@OC for me; Earth. 6+Billion people. ~1 Billion Christians, far less for Islamic peoples, and less for Judaism. When I use 'religious minority' I imply those who follow the "main three".

Click to expand...

World population - 6.98 billion. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

'Major' religions (the religious top 10, half of the 1.1 billion is counted as they are religious but do not identify with a 'organized' religion) - 6.26 billion. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

The top three are ~4.5 billion. Judaism is not even close to 1%.

Your sexual orientation is irrelevant.

The religious minority only exist for those who think that the religious should be a minority.

The 2A is neutral in all respects, it recognizes no difference between humans and our fundamental right to life, liberty, and ect....

Citizen said:

I'm thinking a lot of the arguments for or against gay marriage miss the mark. They're fine arguments, as far as they go. But, they don't really address the crucial points.

The libertarian in me doesn't care whether gays marry. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Or, it wouldn't--if it weren't for what I consider crucial points.

I have a really big objection to being forced to recognize their marriage, which I think is one of their real goals. Meaning they don't really want to just marry. They want everyone else to agree with it. To validate it. To legitimize it. Using government to force others to accept and recognize their unions. Basically using government as a means of social change. This is a real problem in my view--using government to force social change. Not whether gays marry. Let them marry. But, since society hasn't reached broad agreement on the subject, don't force others to recognize it by government regulation. And, you know that regulation would come.

Another point I think is overlooked is benefits: Insurance. Social Security. Tax credits/deductions. I don't know that I have the list right; but whatever they are, they want them. My big objection to this is not that they shouldn't get them, but that some of those benefits shouldn't exist---for anybody. For example, there is no reason married hetero couples should be taxed differently than single heteros; its just social engineering and pandering by the government. If gay marriage continues to spread, they will be clamoring for more of a pie to which none are entitled, except the person it is taken from in the form of taxes or subsidies that shouldn't have been.


Government should get out of marriage. As I mentioned earlier, my current thinking is for government to decide disputes (courts) for divorce and custody, that sort of thing. Otherwise, this government involvement just seems another opportunity for government to provide favors to one group at the expense of another for re-election.

Click to expand...

While this may be the first time I've disagreed with you in substance, I suppose it was inevitable.

The government intentionally likes to conflate issues, so that it is harder to make arguments against its increasing prominence in American life.

For instance, where is your concern that heterosexual couples are using government to force you to recognize their marriages? They are doing it no less than homosexuals would were the fedgov to recognize their marriages. But, in truth, it's not their fault that government insists on enforcing recognition of a religious sacrament. (To the extent that a marriage is merely a voluntary contractual arrangement between consenting individuals, government has the same obligation to enforce and respect such contracts as it does any others. I'm hoping you can agree with that.)

What about special privileges? Whose fault is it that marriage is intrinsically linked with special privilege? Did gays decide to do that? Or was it hetero married couples? Or is it merely something insidiously installed into the institution of marriage by government to make its presence in the arena of marriage not only accepted, but expected?