Skip to content

Gingrich Tells Gay to Support Obama

Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University in Iowa, wanted to know how Newt Gingrich would represent him as president, so he went to one of Gingrich’s campaign events at the Smokey Row coffee house in Oskaloosa. Arnold says he had an open mind, but Gingrich’s response surprised him.

Gingrich told him to support Obama, that he didn’t want his support.

Gingrich recently said in Iowa “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.” In a letter to The Family Leader this month he said he supported a constitutional amendment that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

After three marriages and admitting adultery, you would think that Gingrich would just shut up about marriage. You know, “let he who is without sin” and all that.

Ironically, Gingrich has a half sister who is a married lesbian and a LGBT rights activist.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, the military seems to be adjusting just fine to the repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell. I wish I could say the same thing about the Republican party.



  1. Duckman wrote:

    Regardless of his opinion, I do value the fact that he told the dude to support Obama, that’s kinda cool

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    I disagree. Gingrich is saying that he will not be the president of all Americans, he will only be the president of people he approves of.

    Even if you disapprove of gays, you should still be their president. After all, even Michelle Bachmann wants to “cure” gays.

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
  3. Iron Filing wrote:

    Boehner is making the same mistake as Speaker of the House. He acts like he is House Majority Leader, only working for the Republicans. Boehner will not bring up any votes unless he can pass it with Republican votes only. He could have passed bipartisan bills on numerous occasions like Speakers before him, such as Tip O’Neill, who represented the entire House not just his party. Even Gingrich worked with Democrats more than Boehner has.

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
  4. Duckman wrote:

    Even if that is true Iron Knee, what I said still stands.

    Hey gay person, I’m not going to bat for you, you probably shouldnt vote for me.

    Just sayin

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
  5. ebdoug wrote:

    Boehner is only working for some Republicans, not all Republicans. Many Republicans believe in the good of this country. And I am again reminded that the rich received a tax break on their 2010 and now 2011 returns that has never been talked about. There is no longer a phase out on personal exemptions and standard deduction. So they rich already got their tax break, but no the middle class can’t get theirs. Remember the day that the rich members of congress came with the “tax the rich” tee shirts. Boehner is out of the loop.

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    “I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.” This same logic was used to dispute that the Earth was round, and look how that turned out. Progress is not achieved by doing what’s been done over and over for thousands of years. If that were the case, we would have no cars, computers, telephones, electricity, or any other modern conveniences. “Going against everything we know” is how we change things, and it’s not bad by any means.

    I think Gingrich was having a “Perry moment” when he said this. He should have had more tact than that, but he let his guard down. He’s been doing this a lot lately, so I guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising.

    Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 6:59 am | Permalink
  7. Ron Johnson wrote:

    The real Newt is beginning to show itself to the public …

    Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  8. PatriotSGT wrote:

    We’ll IK if you want to bring that up “only be the president of people he approves of” remember Obamas famous, Republicans need to shut up and sit in the back of the bus”. I agree with Duckmans point that at least he’s telling people now, as opposed to after he gets elected.

    Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
  9. Arthanyel wrote:

    Psgt, the comparison is inaccurate. Obama has never said he wants to completely ignore the Republicans, if anything he has gone too far in trying to appease their extremists. But governing requires doing what’s right for the country as a whole, not for your narrow extremist base, and I think Obama has been much more focused there than any Republican.

    Friday, December 23, 2011 at 9:26 am | Permalink
  10. PatriotSGT wrote:

    And I guess that him signing NDAAA into law is “doing what’s right for the country as a whole”. Not thats “your narrow extremist base” at work.

    Friday, December 23, 2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink
  11. BTN wrote:

    While I don’t approve of Gingrich’s stance on gays, I also appreciate his frankness (although I don’t think it’s “cool”). A politician CAN’T support a constitutional amendment aginst gay marriage on one hand, and gay rights on the other.

    The question to Gingrich was how are gays supposed to support him? So his answer (while not politically correct) was perfectly appropriate given his past statements. How else could he answer the question?

    Eventually, Gingrich may change his mind about gays, but that is different than just saying something that a particular voter wants to hear.

    Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink