Thrice-Married Former House Speaker Charges Democrats With “Breaking Down Traditional Marriage”
Somehow or other the conservative movement has gotten so intellectually bankrupt that the lunatics running the asylum think that Newt Gingrich is an intelligent and canny man. Consequently, he’s snagged himself a situation where he’s in the news constantly offering aperçus like “The Democratic Party has been the active instrument of breaking down traditional marriage.”
Far be it from me to say that Newt Gingrich’s 1981 decision to ask his first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer should bar him from commenting on the value of traditional marriage. But six months after the divorce was finalized, he married a new woman, Marianne Ginther, which suggests there was some infidelity involved. Then in 2000 he divorced Ginther and married a third woman with whom it turns out he’d been having an affair. That, I think, is a bit much. Then after that, he became a Catholic!
I’ve suggested this before, but if we want to bolster traditional marriage it seems to me that a much more reasonable measure than discrimination would be to say that you only get two divorces. After that, you can go about your business as you please, but no more spouses; you’re clearly not a person capable of making credible commitments.
59 Responses to “Thrice-Married Former House Speaker Charges Democrats With “Breaking Down Traditional Marriage””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 20th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I think what you meant to say is, “It’s Okay If You’re A Republican.”
(It always is.)
April 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I truly can’t take Newt seriously when he talks like this. I just wonder why any in the Media do. The guy cheated on two wives with women he later married. Tacky, tacky, tacky on top of just being flat wrong.
Don’t even get me started about him filing/serving his divorce papers to the first wife.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
He shoulda become a Mormon, not a Catholic.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
PR fail.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
This talk about “traditional marriage” is a red herring, obviously. For conservatives, they would rather talk about upholding traditional marriage rather than saying that they do not want to legitimate homosexual relationships.
For liberals, traditional marriage for its own sake is not what is it issue. We should focus on the good public policy outcomes that we want to encourage and the bad outcomes that we want to discourage. I think what is largely at issue is making sure that children are raised in loving, stable, economically viable home environments. Where children are not involved, it really does not matter so much how often people get married or divorced.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Matthew have you ever seen the episode of Entourage when Ari tells Vin that the perception of Colin Farrell is that he’s a a-list movie star and so it sticks even though he’s not?
k1
April 20th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Re: I’ve suggested this before, but if we want to bolster traditional marriage it seems to me that a much more reasonable measure than discrimination would be to say that you only get two divorces. After that, you can go about your business as you please, but no more spouses; you’re clearly not a person capable of making credible commitments.
Why two divorces? Let’s do marriage for the first try, and then only domestic partnerships after that. Some yahoo on his third marriage should not be compared to a couple married for the first time.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I have to believe that there is at least one prominent Republican with only one marriage who can speak coherently and opposes gay marriage. Can’t they produce just one?
April 20th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Re: I have to believe that there is at least one prominent Republican with only one marriage who can speak coherently and opposes gay marriage. Can’t they produce just one?
Well, if it counts, there are plenty of never-married priests who oppose gay marriage.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Well, if it counts, there are plenty of never-married priests who oppose gay marriage.
It doesn’t count, for reasons I won’t even begin to enumerate.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
And this will probably be the GOP candidate in 2016. A leader, a leader, my kingdom for a leader.
Bravo for mentioning the cancer breakup. Everyone who loves this guy (especially the evangelicals) should have to comment on how they feel about him pulling something like that.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Did you hear they found monogamy related program activities…in Newt’s pants!
April 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“Well, if it counts, there are plenty of never-married priests who oppose gay marriage.”
I’m not sure trotting out Catholic priests would bolster their cause. Priests have a less than stellar reputation on the issue of pedophilia. It would boost the argument that priests should be forced to marry one teenage boy when he turns 18.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Where children are not involved, it really does not matter so much how often people get married or divorced.
I disagree somewhat. The legal regulation of marriage has always been about property and other economic relationships between the spouses as much as it has been about children, and divorce law implicitly recognizes how economically disruptive it can be for people to enter marriages then have them break up unexpectedly.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
joejoejoe Says: Did you hear they found monogamy related program activities…in Newt’s pants!
That almost made me pee MY pants! But whose army is going to volunteer for the invasion of Newt’s pants? I suspect Mrs. Newt doesn’t even want that job.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think the price of a marriage license should increase a hundredfold with each successive attempt. That way, rich, conservative entertainers like Newt and Rush would be the model serial divorcees.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
A bold gambit from MattY! MattY – five-time recipient of the Amanda Terkel Award For Excelllence in Thinking Award, three-time recipient of The Journ-o-List Fuschia Sash, and three-time recipient of the Jennifer Palmieri Golden Hand award – is clearly trying for the ThinkProgress CAP Award For Meritorious Service In LogicalFallacies with this post, perhaps his best ever attempt at an absolute LogicalFallacy.
As MattY used some “Francais” in the post, let me respond in kind: Bravo! Moltissimo Bravo!
P.S. In answer to the screen, no: the problem is that I’m not posting comments quickly enough and I need to speed up.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I think the Republican Party should keep seeing its future salvation in older and older hot-button issues. Surely the issue of tighter budgets on the next Pharaoh’s pyramid will be a winner.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
No, Lonewacko, the problem is that you need to go out and play in the traffic instead of shitting on this blog. Perhaps your SpaceBar is out there in the middle of the road?
April 20th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
MattY – five-time recipient of the Amanda Terkel Award For Excelllence in Thinking Award, three-time recipient of The Journ-o-List Fuschia Sash, and three-time recipient of the Jennifer Palmieri Golden Hand award
Are you going to keep repeating ThisCrap until someone laughs?
April 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
He laughs every time he posts it, and so, no, that’s no stopping point.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Lonewacko’s comments are clearly libelous. His IP address has been logged and the information forwarded to the MexicanGovernment. Here’s hoping they record whatever they do to him and post it on Youtube.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
And why do they keep calling him “Mr. Speaker”? If he gets a title from earlier in life, they should call him “Mr. Skank-banger”.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I just want to point out that I brought up Newt as someone with no credibility on this issue in the earlier post on Giuliani.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Your point about the hypocrisy of Gingrich is well taken, but the equivalence of all individuals on their third marriage (after two divorces) is really not fair. Sometimes people have a couple of bad breaks. My brother-in-law is on his third marriage and has been wonderful to my sister, a step child, and their two children for 17 years. Leave the social engineering to conservatives.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Why two divorces? Let’s do marriage for the first try, and then only domestic partnerships after that.
It guess it’s time to re-up my “fuck you” to Hector. I am my wife’s second husband and we can do without the totalitarian christianist whackjobs checking up on us. Thanks for asking.
It’s really not the job of the government to be deciding who can and can’t be married and I’m surprised to see Matt noodling around with this idea at all. He’s just agreed in principal to meet Hector halfway and that’s never a good idea.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Re: ve suggested this before, but if we want to bolster traditional marriage it seems to me that a much more reasonable measure than discrimination would be to say that you only get two divorces.
Come on, even the Orthodox Church, not a noted bastion of libertinism, allows for four marriages.
But couldn’t the GOP come up with a better poster-child for the santity of matrimony than Gingrich? At least George W Bush is still with Laura.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Gingrich is so full of fail, it’s almost not even worth the time to comment about him. The jokes, they write themselves.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
He became a Catholic? Man I missed that one. Boy the Catholic Church will let in anybody these days, even someone living in sin. Funny considering the Church’s stance on divorce that they will look the other way for this.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
As Oscar Wilde said “Polygamy is one wife too many, and so is monogamy”. Which has nothing to do with this but I needed an excuse to say it. We all know which way Oscar swung however. Which is neither here nor there. In Newt’s favor he never lived with a future wife in the same house as his then current one, like Rudy. I am not sure where that puts him on the scale of absolute gender.
No matter. The base hates Newts guts. I think everyone does but as the default poster boy for brain dead centrism Newts brand of crackpotism is irresistible.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Benny Lava,
If either Gingrich or his wife was not a believing Christian, then I believe the marriage can be automatically annulled, it’s called Petrine privilege or something like that. I dont have time to look it up right now, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
DMontheith,
In case you’re literacy-challenged, I was referring to my Platonic ideal of a society, not to the actually existing United States. And let me assure you, in my Platonic ideal of a society, your opinion wouldn’t count particularly more than the opinion of a five year old who doesn’t like to eat broccoli. The purpose of a government is to encourage the practice of virtue among its citizens, not to slap them on the back and assure them, “I’m OK You’re Ok’. A natural-law government would very properly hold that some ways of life are superior to others. If you don’t like that, I’m afraid the problem is with you.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Matt’s point was that people on their 3rd marriage have no business telling others whom they can and cannot marry. Saying that they should be cut-off after two was a little joke. The government shouldn’t be involved in the marriage decisions of any two consenting, unrelated adults.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Actually the “defense of marriage” movement needs horndogs like Gingrich and Giuliani, because a lot of the people they would like to add to the constituency are anti-gay bigots but almost equally put off by pious family values types like Sam Brownback or Gary Bauer. Think of your average Howard Stern/Opie ‘n’ Anthony listener.
The unseriousness of Gingrich and Giuliani regarding the institution of marriage isn’t just a gotcha point. It really goes to the heart of the issue. Not enough people feel strongly about marriage per se to prevent expanding the franchise. To hold the line, they need to have on board people who hate gays but don’t really care about marriage all that much.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hector, once again, it’s not that we don’t believe that some ways of life are preferable or superior to others. We believe that the ways of life that *you* envision are inferior and stupid. This is not a matter of thinking anything goes, or “I’m OK, you’re OK”, which you always accuse us of—it is thinking that society as you envision it is a horrible idea. There is a difference.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Giuliani doesn’t hate gays. (Okay…maybe Muslim gays.) He’s probably even for civil unions. (Shhhh…don’t tell Maggie Gallagher.) But, more than anything else, he wants to be back in the conversation. NY governor. 2012 Republican nominee. And he knows that to be the nominee of this party in four years or even a crucial member of said party, you have to play to the base. Otherwise, you’re a soon-to-be unemployed guy telling everyone about your magic bullet theory.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Al Franken thought of it first. From The Truth (with jokes:
It’s stuff like this that only makes me wish we could have seated him months ago.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias justifiably has some fun with the news that twice divorced, thrice married Newt Gingrich is charging that “The Democratic Party has been the active instrument of breaking down traditional marriage.” And one can’t blame him for being amused that twice divorced, thrice married Rudy Giuliani is championing traditional marriage as a cornerstone of a possible gubernatorial bid. [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
The fact that Newt has suffered two failed marriages and counting only proves what he’s been saying all along about gays destroying the institution of marriage.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I have to believe that there is at least one prominent Republican with only one marriage who can speak coherently and opposes gay marriage.
Ironically, this would be the Mormon, Mitt Romney.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I admit to being a defender of “traditional marriage” (for different reasons than Newt, I suspect) but phonies like Gingrich never seem to get the other half of the story. The reason marriage and families are having such a rough time of it is: 1) the free market economy that places tremendous strain on the average family and 2) the divorce epidemic. “Gay marriage” will have minimal, if any, impact on marriage. It’s the other two problems that the family values charlatans should be focusing on.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
At least he didn’t convert to Greek Orthodoxy, where you don’t get a third marriage even if your wives die (as the Emperor Leo VI found out).
April 20th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
[...] Filed under: Uncategorized — David Schaengold @ 9:32 pm Yglesias has a suggestion for supporters of traditional marriage: …if we want to bolster traditional marriage it seems [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
April 21st, 2009 at 12:07 am
I was referring to my Platonic ideal of a society…
…And I was just saying that it sucks. No literacy problem on this end.
…in my Platonic ideal of a society, your opinion wouldn’t count particularly more than the opinion of a five year old who doesn’t like to eat broccoli.
Which is why you’re a dick. I’m willing to grant your opinion one part in 300 million, which is pretty insignificant, but it ain’t nothing. Besides, isn’t the ideal society the kingdom of heaven or some such crap? Didn’t Jesus allegedly mutter something about his kingdom not being here on earth? Oh yeah, I forgot that the christianity menu is a la carte.
I hear they’ve got that whole virtue thing down pretty good in the natural law utopia of Saudi Arabia. Maybe you should look into moving there. Bonus: my opinion doesn’t count there. How can you resist?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:50 am
Two strikes and you’re out (of the marriage club, anyway). I love it!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:57 am
Clearly, both Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich feel that two women getting married anywhere threatens the 6 marriages they’ve had between them.
More seriously….. Gingrich clearly is running for the 2012 GOP nomination. The other supposed potentials – Jindal, Palin, Sanford, et al – keep imploding. Gingrich thinks the party is in such disarray that it will come down to a choice between himself, and possibly Gov. Jon Huntsman. Who is from the reddest state of all, yet is competent, not a total nut – he’s for civil unions for gays, for example – and intelligent.
If either of them get it, expect one person they approach for the VP slot to be former Rep. JD Watts of Oklahoma.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:35 am
Hey, I’m a liberal and support gay marriage.
I’ve also been married twice and will probably be married again. First time was 2 years, 2nd was 12 years (after 2 years living together).
I’m not Christian, BTW. I find Gingrich and Giuliani’s hyprocrisy reprehensible. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Due to the way divorce law works in my state, I end up paying child support even though I have 50% custody and my ex-wife makes more than I do (we are both well-paid engineering professionals).
So I would just like to point out to all you people advocating extra charges for multiple marriages that
1) There are plenty enough charges for multiple marriages as it is. You don’t need to add artificial disincentives. There’s lots of pain to go around.
2) Any time you have pairs of people entering into partnerships, some of those partnerships are going to not work out, and they will have to be dissolved. I’d actually welcome getting more of these situations occurring, because it might shake out the current divorce laws a bit and make them reflect current society instead of the traditional roles of 30 to 50 years ago. I have a good friend, a lesbian, whose relationship (with a young child) was breaking up around the same time as mine. Our experiences turned out to be very similar, since she was not the natural mother and thus was in the role of “father”. It can be a sad and ugly experience to have to deal with a bitter and unforgiving person who ascribes ill-will and malice to the other person [not looking into their own behavior], when we’re all just trying to get along as well as we can, and sometimes two people just aren’t right for each other.
3) However you try to socially engineer something, someone like Newt is going to come along and demonstrate that someone with connections can get away with shameless behavior without bearing responsibility for his effect on the institution. But I would rather live in a society that is a little more lenient, which lets a few individuals get away without paying enough than cause a large number of people to suffer more, needlessly.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:45 am
I’m also disturbed that many of the arguments above implicitly accept the Christian framing that traditional marriage is a one-shot deal. Note that the United States is NOT a Christian country, and the institution of Marriage should not be defined by the tenets of a single religion.
Both Judaism and Islam allow multiple divorces and put no limit on their number (other than the practicality of having to give adequate support to those you divorce) and are much less hung up about the practice than Christianity. The reluctance of conservative religious Jews and Muslims to allow gay marriage has more to do with the traditional association of marriage with bearing and raising children in a way that gives them a solid, socially acknowledged foundation, than with any notion of heavenly union.
My position is that as society becomes more tolerant and open-minded, it is possible for children to be raised lovingly and with a solid foundation even in the context of non-traditional marriages. Therefore it behooves society to acknowledge committed partnerships of any sort and give them the support they need to contribute back to society.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:59 am
1. Millions of kids from broken homes have a very different opinion about ‘traditional marriage’…’never for me’ is one response.
2. Proponents of traditional marriage ignore the ‘chattel’ and lack of rights history…or maybe they don’t and just want their women to shut up and behave…like their mothers did.
3. The second I hear someone say ‘traditional marriage’, I look for some indication that rights are conditional to them.
Oh, and as far as Newt goes, I prefer to judge people by their own standards and on that basis, Newt has the same moral authority as Bill Clinton and Rudy – none.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:10 am
Re: Which is why you’re a dick. I’m willing to grant your opinion one part in 300 million, which is pretty insignificant, but it ain’t nothing.
And that’s why your society will fail, because you’re p*ssified enough to grant the vote to your enemies. In an ideal society, people who hold a five year old’s morality would have the same political rights as a five year old, that is to say none.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:11 am
Newt Gingrich is what happens when you cross kudzu with poison ivy.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:01 am
The famous are rarely significant and the significant are rarely famous.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
[...] 22, 2009 Culture, US Politics Via Matthew Yglesias today comes news that both Rudy Guiliani and Newt Gingrich are gearing up to become the new fervent defenders of marriage. As followers of US politics will [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 11:04 am
And that’s why your society will fail, because you’re p*ssified enough to grant the vote to your enemies.
That’s mighty christian of you. If you hadn’t included the asterisk I might think you were failing to turn the other cheek!
April 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
If Gingrich has been divorced twice but married three times doesn’t that leave him with a net gain in the promotion of the institution of marriage?
April 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As sir Jimmy Goldsmith pointed out “When a man marries his mistress, he automatically creates a vacancy.”
April 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I remember when Newt and #3 married they were registered at Williams-Sonoma or somewhere. One could view their gift registry list on line and, theoretically, purchase a gift for them. That list of gifts included….sheets.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Newt proves the GOP motto “do as I say, not as I do”. Wait, or is it “morals matter and character counts”…? I forget.