I Really Hate Newt Gingrich

I'm just going to flatly say it outright here: I hate Newt Gingrich.  I've been charged with coming down too hard on the Republicans, so I want to say this first: I don't hate Newt Gingrich because he is a Republican.  I hate Newt Gingrich because he spouts the sort of hate rhetoric that validates the terrible thoughts and feelings for which closed-minded people need to be chastised.  In short, I hate Newt Gingrich because he makes it okay to be a bull-headed jackass.  He's a bully.  He's mean-spirited.  And he's given a national platform to give the other mean-spirited bullies a voice.

Let's look at this article from today's Huffington Post regarding gay marriage.  Gingrich has been on this soap box for most of his campaign.  He can't seem to wait to talk about it when asked questions in the debates.  He takes a hard line on it, often referring to it as counter to the foundations of civilization.  He's quoted as saying such in the above article: "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."  This is more than just suggesting that same-sex couples violate his understanding of morality; he claims that they violate the basic foundations of civilization (and, actually, anyone who is not Catholic/christian does so as well).  In this quote, which can be read in all it's inflammatory context in the Huffington Post article, connects heterosexual marriage to the founding principals of modern mankind.  For Gingrich, the Bible and heterosexuality is what got the lone hunter gathering early man to form societies.

There are a lot of problems with this statement, and I actually have a lot to do, so I won't waste your time in pointing out too much of the obvious and dissecting all the places Gingrich is clearly mistaken.  I will say, though, that there was a lot of same-sex goings-on in the works of Plato.  Gingrich might want to read Phaedrus or The Symposium before he claims that civilization is founded on heterosexual marriage. 

The point I want to make here revolves around something that is truly at the center of America: the right to Free Speech.  America has long stood firm on the issue of Free Speech.  Newt Gingrinch is constitutionally protected when he spouts this sort of hate rhetoric, as was Sarah Palin when she posted pictures with Democrats in cross-hairs shortly before one misguided person attempted to assassinate a Democrat in public.  Anyone is allowed to say anything publicly so long as it does not directly incite riots or is not blatantly false.  Both of those things are hard to prove, so really, most anyone can say anything in America (well, so long as you don't upset the large corporations or Wall St. - then you get pepper sprayed for saying what you want).

Free Speech is not constitutionally guaranteed in the UK, and I am starting to understand why.  There are laws on the books here for inciting hatred and inciting violence that would have taken both Gingrinch and Palin out of public eye.  It might be that the Freedom of Speech is a responsibility America is not capable of handling.  

The problem with Free Speech is that words have lasting and far reaching effects.  Now, while Gingrich certainly never claims that anyone should do anything to a gay person (much like Palin never said to shoot Gabby Gifford directly), what he is saying is that gay people are not part of normal society.  And as a public figure, and apparently a more popular public figure than I had previously suspected, his complete condemnation of gay people validates those same beliefs in less level-headed people.  Much in the same way that profiling institutionalized racism, making loud claims about homosexuality being abnormal in human civilization allows for people to continue to think that these Americans are not real Americans (or good Americans, or even real or good people).  Sometimes when people feel strongly about something, and they lack that little voice in their head that stays a violent hand, people will act out.  There certainly are enough bullies terrorizing gay people as is.  Gingrich might as well have patted them all on the head.

These sentiments are hard enough to take from Santorum and Perry who both came down hard on gay marriage.  Both, though, have remained faithful to their spouses which suggests that they take their marriage vows seriously (at least publicly).  In the end, their message is consistent with their upbringing, and as abhorrent and oppressive as these beliefs are, there is nothing inherently hypocritical about it.  Santorum and Parry walk the walk of their insanely moronic talk.

Gingrich, though, has extremely dubious personal morals, especially when it comes to marriage.  Besides being unfaithful several times in all of his marriages, he divorced his first wife while she was recovering from surgery in the hospital.  Because he was having an affair.  With a younger woman.  WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL BEING TREATED FOR CANCER!  According to former aids, Gingrich has said, "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."  Gingrich, though, denies saying it.  He has claimed, and rightfully so, that those were mistakes of a younger man.  That argument would hold water if he did push for another divorce after cheating on his second wife.  And then to go on and claim this: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."  So his infidelities were not because he lacks strong moral character; his infidelities are because he works too hard for the country he loves.

Three wives and two divorces; both divorces stemming from infidelity.  All of this from a supposed Catholic.
Now, I am no expert, but the Catholic church doesn't allow divorce.  Part of their core doctrine is that the sacred sacraments are binding for life (that whole "Until death do us part" bit in the vows which Gingrich should remember, having said them THREE times).  The Catholic church has been adamant about this for some time.  In fact, Henry the VIII forced the Church of England to break from Roman Catholicism so he could divorce his first wife, and that was in 1533, 479 years ago.  This is not a new belief.

I was livid about this earlier when I talked with Catherine.  I was furious that Gingrich was bullying Americans on the public stage, and gaining support in doing so.  Catherine laughed about it, saying, "At least he's the one saying it.  I mean, he has no leg to stand on.  When he comes out against gay marriage, he just looks like an idiot, and these statements seem ridiculous."  I hope she's right.  I hope that most people are smart enough to see the inherent flaws in Gingrich chastising homosexuality for violating the sanctity of marriage while he figuratively takes a steaming dump on that same institution.  But I have less faith in humanity.  I worry that when mean people hear their closed-minded views advocated, that's when people feel compelled to act on their beliefs.