Gay Patriot Header Image

Putting Newt’s response to a gay Iowan in context

A reader alerted me to an article contending that GOP presidential candidate “Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa[, Iowa] here today that he should vote for President Obama.”  According to Memeorandum, the story is generating quite the buzz in the blogosphere.

Only problem is that the spin of the Democrat who posed the question is at odds with the reality of what the former House Speaker actually said.  He left out a lot of context as the actual video of their encounter reveals:

Here’s what Gingrich actually said:

I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.

Emphasis added.  The Republican is not saying to vote for Obama because he’s gay, but to vote for Obama if gay  marriage is the only issue that really matters to him.  As my friend Rick Sincere (who posted the initial article on Facebook) put it:

The man who asked the question spun Gingrich’s response as quite a lot broader than just the marriage issue. Why he would say vote for Obama is a mystery, though, since Obama has said he’s opposed to gay marriage. (Except in 1996, when he was for it.)

As Chris Barron, Chief Strategist at GOProud, put it:

Speaker Gingrich said absolutely nothing wrong in his exchange with the gay Iowa voter. Indeed, Gingrich made it clear that gay people who care about job creation, national security and a better future for our country should support his campaign. Speaker Gingrich handled himself with class and dignity in this discussion with the gay voter and the press reports that have reported otherwise have done a real disservice to the truth.”

Interesting the lengths to which some gay lefties will go to present a Republican Party as hostile to gays as they are to Republicans.

UPDATE:  Look, we’re not going to find the perfect candidate with whom we agree on every issue.  Newt is making a comment about one-issue voters.  As William A. Jacobson put it:

All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person was implementing gay marriage, then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama.  Newt made clear that if gay marriage was not the determinative  issue, then the person should consider Newt

Emphasis added.  In other words, Newt said that he welcomed the support of gay people even if they disagree with him on this issue.



  1. Thanks for clearing this up for me. As a gay conservative I am having a hard time reconciling my conservative values with my interest in gay rights issues. I was appalled to think that Newts only response was vote for Obama.

    Comment by Melissa — December 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm - December 21, 2011

  2. This is again a lesson people must learn. Caveat here is I am way more conservative than the average “homocon”–so it wouldn’t concern me either way. However, it disturbs me that the liberal press deliberately took this man’s word as the gospel and reported on it to smear Newt.

    Then, SOME people on the gay right (said: Romney supporters) were quick to automatically believe it because it was negative towards Newt and/or a gay rights agenda.

    The funny thing here is Newt made a comment that is the antithesis to the accusation. He actually attempted to REACH OUT to gay voters-yet he’s still labeled a hater. Sad, but hilarious.

    I am glad to see people setting the record straight.

    Comment by Kyle — December 21, 2011 @ 3:10 pm - December 21, 2011

  3. […] More at Gay Patriot.   […]

    Pingback by » Shock – Completely misleading story about Newt saying gays should vote for Obama - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion — December 21, 2011 @ 3:16 pm - December 21, 2011

  4. Gingrich: Same-sex marriage is a ‘temporary aberration’ JASON CLAYWORTH 9:41 AM, Sep 30, 2011

    Fort Dodge, Ia. – Same-sex marriage is a temporary aberration that will dissipate, Newt Gingrich said here today.

    “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,” Gingrich said. “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.”

    Gingrich, who has been married three times and has previously admitted to being a past adulterer, made the statement in response to a question from the audience during an event he held at a Best Western hotel conference room.

    Comment by rusty — December 21, 2011 @ 3:45 pm - December 21, 2011

  5. Rusty apparently has some burr in his blanket concerning Newt’s opinion that the same-sex marriage agenda is a “temporary aberration” of the ages old one man one woman tradition of marriage.

    Are we supposed to react to whether this is a “temporary” political agenda or whether same-sex marriage is an “aberration” of the marriage tradition?

    Or, is “aberration” a politically charged, insensitive term which ignites the flames of political correctness and damns the user as a “hater” and homophobe?

    I will purse my lips and stomp my feet when I know why I am supposed to do so and then, only if I agree with the outrage.

    A bit of ranting is probably in order, as conservatives usually use their minds before going off on a flaming hissy-fit.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 21, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - December 21, 2011

  6. Oh but wait! There’s late breaking news that Obama had another EVOLUTION in his views which seem to indicate that he is not just inching toward but now skipping ever so closer in his Evolving process to supporting same-sex marriage… so we’ve got keep up with that unquestioning, blind support of him so we can keep him on that evolutionary path, you know! And any inkling that Gingrich is not getting his words misrepresented enough might jeopardize that evolution.

    Comment by PopArt — December 21, 2011 @ 4:04 pm - December 21, 2011

  7. […] – Daniel Blatt @ Gay Patriot […]

    Pingback by What Newt Actually Said To Scott Arnold | Queer Landia — December 21, 2011 @ 4:16 pm - December 21, 2011

  8. I want to know who the old queen was that asked Mr. Newt that question, and if he is affiliated with any left-leaning groups that put him up to it.

    There is no way that a regular, everyday, unaffiliated voter would get this kind of access unless he brought along the media (through JournoList) to record what he believes will be a “gotcha” message.

    It is similar to pro-union parents who bring their children along as “kiddie shields” to ask GOP candidates/lawmakers about why “you are cutting mommy and daddy’s benefits.”

    Hell, if the left could do it to plain old Joe the Plumber, why can’t we do the same?

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 21, 2011 @ 4:40 pm - December 21, 2011

  9. Interesting, thanks for posting this Dan. I wondered what the full context of this was when I saw the newsflash on my phone earlier today. When they identified the man as a Democrat I was suspicious that there was more to it. Seems I was right to be skeptical. Having said that, I still will not vote for Gingrich because of his stance on SSM and a whole lot of other reasons. I still can’t believe that this bunch is the best the GOP has got to offer. Pathetic.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 21, 2011 @ 4:41 pm - December 21, 2011

  10. […] GayPatriot has a lot more on this story, including important context not provided in the original story I quoted. Here is Newt’s full […]

    Pingback by Newt Tells Gay Iowa Voter to Vote for Obama « Blogs For Victory — December 21, 2011 @ 4:50 pm - December 21, 2011

  11. Btw, if anyone is interested Timothy Kincaid over at BoxTurtleBulletin is also criticizing how this has been reported:

    Comments over on more liberal blogs like Queerty and JMG are about what you’d expect.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 21, 2011 @ 4:52 pm - December 21, 2011

  12. After, of course, Jim Burroway posted the lie and misreporting earlier — which neatly undercuts Kincaid’s attempt to save face by blabbing about not running with “spin”, since the actual video was available at the time Burroway posted.

    Don’t try to paint Box Turtle Bulletin as anything but a bigot site, John. Both Kincaid and Burroway and their syncophants were screaming within minutes that Sarah Palin was responsible for shooting Gabrielle Giffords and whipping their commenters into a frenzy demanding Palin’s arrest and imprisonment. Later on, they were blabbing that it wasn’t Sarah Palin’s fault only because she “got lucky”, and that their bigoted assertion that she was responsible was somehow right.

    I mean, seriously? Why should Newt Gingrich treat bigots like Jim Burroway who accuse Republicans and conservatives of murder without evidence with any respect at all? Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin have demonstrated that they are a bigot site that doesn’t care about facts, doesn’t care about truth, and only cares about smearing and sliming Republicans and conservatives for crimes they didn’t commit.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2011 @ 5:40 pm - December 21, 2011

  13. Gingrich told a gay voter to vote for Obama, knowing full well that Obama is the gay-friendly candidate in this race and he definitely is not. We are not reading between the lines. We all know where Gingrich stands on gay-specific issues so stop the madness already. If all you care about is gay-specific issues, then vote for Obama over Gingrich. Period. It takes very little thought to figure that one out. If other things matter more, then you have a choice to make. GOProud looks like an idiot fighting this battle for Gingrich. GOProud is way too quick to defend conservative enemies of gay-specific issues.

    Comment by Eddie — December 21, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - December 21, 2011

  14. If all you care about is gay-specific issues, then vote for Obama over Gingrich. Period. It takes very little thought to figure that one out.

    Yup. And it is quite revealing that gays like yourself who only vote based on gay-specific issues finally are acknowledging how little thought your positions take. You are single-issue voters, who don’t care about anything other than how much welfare and head pats you are promised.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - December 21, 2011

  15. As a gay person I choose to look at the big picture. I believe in gay rights but as a US citizen, I’m more concerned about the future of our country. I’m with Newt. We have more gay rights in this country than a lot of other countries. Which is more important having jobs and living in a good economy with a secure future or gay marriage? I would rather know that I can put food on my table and pay my bills.

    Comment by Maria — December 21, 2011 @ 6:15 pm - December 21, 2011

  16. On the issue of gay marriage…there is no difference between Obama’s position and that of Newt, McCain, or George W. Bush.

    The ONLY major political figure of either party who favors gay marriage?

    Dick Cheney.


    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 21, 2011 @ 6:26 pm - December 21, 2011

  17. Dear Mr. Munster (or may I call you Eddie?),

    You wrote this:

    GOProud is way too quick to defend conservative enemies of gay-specific issues.

    Perchance you misunderstand GOProud. Where is it written that GOProud automatically supports all gay-specific issues? Mayhaps the “enemies” of some gays are not universally the enemies of all gays. Hast thou no concept of diversity? Shall we sit down in a calm, hissy-fit free manner and chat, yea communicate, the differences of opinion at play in this gay-specific matter?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 21, 2011 @ 6:31 pm - December 21, 2011

  18. Burr probably not, but I do like this. Newt is a hypocritical politician and a bully

    Comment by rusty — December 21, 2011 @ 6:37 pm - December 21, 2011

  19. Dear Mr. Munster,

    The link came up a dud.

    Does it address the issue of “temporary aberration” or are you attempting to introduce a non-sequitur as a distraction?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 21, 2011 @ 7:52 pm - December 21, 2011

  20. NDT: This is not the first time that Burroway and Kincaid have disagreed publically at BTB. The former went with the information that had been reported this morning without waiting to see how it developed first, while Kincaid obviously chose the wiser course on this matter. So did Dan I’m glad to see. While BTB is generally more liberal in politics, Burroway especially, I do not agree with your assessment of the site and your comments seem to indicate a previous clash with one or both of the main bloggers there so really has nothing to do with me. Besides, I posted the link to BTB to show that even at least one blogger at a site that is more liberal than GP likewise found much to criticize about this story.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 21, 2011 @ 7:56 pm - December 21, 2011

  21. […] Putting Newt’s response to a gay Iowan in context […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Newt Gingrich and Gay Marriage — December 21, 2011 @ 7:58 pm - December 21, 2011

  22. 16: Actually Bruce, there is. Both Bush and Newt support constitutional amendments to ban SSM, which Cheney & Obama do not. Newt also takes the approach of seeking a clash with SCOTUS beyond an amendment if they strike down DOMA. Bush, Cheney and Obama I don’t believe would go that far.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 21, 2011 @ 7:59 pm - December 21, 2011

  23. #4

    Same-sex marriage is a temporary aberration that will dissipate

    How dare he say something so hateful and bigoted. What a vile homophobe he is.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 21, 2011 @ 8:32 pm - December 21, 2011

  24. If all you care about is gay rights, that’s fine. But if you say that every gay person must only care about gay rights or they are self-hating Jewish Nazi (or some variant of that), then you are only exposing your vast idiocy and own bigotry.

    I am gay and I oppose most “gay rights,” and I don’t hate myself or other homosexuals in general. And I respect the right for other homosexuals to be completely supportive of all gay rights, and I acknowledge that I may agree with them on other things, or even respect them if I don’t agree with them on anything. But that is only if they have a similar attitude towards me. It would be self-hating of me to tolerate those who are intolerant of me (and there is no evidence that I am aware of that Michele Bachmann would be intolerant of me).

    And I don’t understand the mindset of those that have “litmus tests”; it is completely illogical. I really wish the “gay community,” or at least its self-described leaders and representatives, would be more logical and not subject anyone to “litmus tests” (which is clearly what the idiot gay guy in the video is doing). But that’s just me.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 21, 2011 @ 8:55 pm - December 21, 2011

  25. I really wish to God that everyone in this nation would read and consider what I call the constitutional solution to the SSM issue. It’s really very simple, and it would, I think address the concerns of all Americans irrespective of their personal sexual orientation. The blackletter rule can be stated as follows: each and every state of the United States has exclusive and plenary power to enact laws affecting or dealing with the “health, safety, and morals” of the citizenry of each state. The source of this “police power” is the 10th Amendment (possibly also the 9th). BTW, the “police power” referenced here has nothing whatsoever to do with the police. The only restriction on the right and authority of each state to exercise its police power is that any state law or statute passed by a particular state must not be inconsistent with Federal law and the Constitution of the United States. Let’s be clear: the federal government has no police power, none whatsoever. The public health, safety and morals of a state’s citizenry is the exclusive province of the state government as expressed in the statutory laws enacted by the state legislature. In a case from the 1880s, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld the right of Kansas to outlaw all sales, consumption, and distribution of alcoholic beverages. That case, Mugler v. Kansas has NEVER been overruled by the SCOTUS. That said, the only solution to the SSM issue is the constitutional one to which most Republicans and conservatives subscribe and agree: let each state legislature (NOT COURTS) decide whether it wants to change the definition of its marriage laws to permit SSM. I know many will not be happy, and will attempt to assert a 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument to invalidate state laws in the federal courts. But this is a dangerous path. If the federal courts can strike down a state marriage law which requires the parties to a marriage to be of the opposite sex on an equal protection basis, what is to stop the federal (or state) courts from striking down state marriage laws which do not allow for 3 party marriage, or 4, 5, or more party marriage. If you argue that the source of male/female or traditional marriage is religion, and that such laws ought to be scraped simply on that basis, then what is to stop the courts from striking down laws against murder, or rape, or robbery because they originated in ancient religious codes? The only solution is the Constitutional Solution, and that is to permit each state to define the moral codes for its citizens. It’s fair, it’s constitutional, and it was the intention of the Constitutional Framers. I pray, literally, that the gay left will see the wisdom of this course, because our very survival as a nation depends on it in my humble opinion. The Constitutional Framers had a plan for EVERYTHING. All we need to do is to follow their wisdom. If the sovereign people of Massachusetts or Vermont or whatever choose to allow SSM, it’s no skin off my nose even though I’m a conservative and choose to live in a state that has defined marriage as one man + one woman = marriage.

    Comment by DV — December 21, 2011 @ 8:59 pm - December 21, 2011

  26. Sorry Heliotrope. . .bad link

    Comment by rusty — December 21, 2011 @ 10:28 pm - December 21, 2011

  27. #25

    If you argue that the source of male/female or traditional marriage is religion

    It’s not. The “source” of traditional marriage is the fact that only a male/female couple can continue the species (which is also why heterosexual couples are superior, in a sense, to homosexual ones*). And that fact is what (Abrahamic,, as well as others) religious marriage (or, more accurately, which groups of people can enter into a mutual marriage) is based on, via earlier cultures.

    what is to stop the courts from striking down laws against murder, or rape, or robbery because they originated in ancient religious codes?

    You can’t be serious. You do bring up some points I agree with in your comment (about federalism, the founding fathers’ wisdom, etc.) but this is just plain ridiculous. I would hope that most people would be able to see why murder (and the other crimes you mention) would be against the law, for reasons other than religion.

    *That is not to say there is anything wrong with homosexual couples, or infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples that chose not to reproduce, etc.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 22, 2011 @ 12:06 am - December 22, 2011

  28. and totally off topic. . .this is a wonder right outside my door

    Comment by rusty — December 22, 2011 @ 12:31 am - December 22, 2011

  29. To put a finer point on it, religions that value life and its preservation, such as the Abrahamic faiths, have laws that benefit the preservation of life and the procreation of (at least the human) species. To these religions, murder will be anathema and homosexual practices (not merely homosexual tendencies) will be frowned upon if not outlawed. Religions that glorify death, or that take no particular interest in life, might not have such rules.

    Comment by Yackums — December 22, 2011 @ 6:23 am - December 22, 2011

  30. DV,

    How does the the full faith and credit clause come into play? Do the same sex married persons have to dwell within the state in order to be married?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 22, 2011 @ 7:51 am - December 22, 2011

  31. The Government should treat each citizen equally, period.

    If your church will marry you, you’re married, period.

    This whole debate is just about taxes don’t forget.

    Comment by BigJ — December 22, 2011 @ 10:05 am - December 22, 2011

  32. “As a gay conservative I am having a hard time reconciling my conservative values with my interest in gay rights issues.”

    Yes, I can see how that would be true. Pick one or the other.

    Comment by Christopher Taylor — December 22, 2011 @ 1:16 pm - December 22, 2011

  33. On the issue of gay marriage…there is no difference between Obama’s position and that of Newt, McCain, or George W. Bush.

    Nice try Bruce.

    Newt Gingrich vows to support constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and George W. Bush endorsed a similar amendment while Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006. Also, Barack Obama made a speech at the time saying:

    I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.

    Comment by Serenity — December 22, 2011 @ 4:31 pm - December 22, 2011

  34. Yes, Pomposity, let’s look at that speech.

    Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Which makes Obama, by your own definition, a bigot and a homophobe.

    Which makes you, by your own definition, a hypocrite and a self-loathing person for supporting him.

    This is why we laugh at you. So easy to fool, so willing to debase itself for black skin.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2011 @ 5:30 pm - December 22, 2011

  35. Exactly right, NDT. Talking to “progressives” (and speaking of pomposity, what a pompous, self-congratulatory, self-delusional term) is like trying to reason with small children. They are nothing but wide-eyed, gullible toadies and tools.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2011 @ 8:18 pm - December 22, 2011

  36. Naamloos at #24, very well said.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 23, 2011 @ 6:06 pm - December 23, 2011

  37. I agree that the context included Newt’s attempt to dodge the question by bringing in economics and national security. He was not asked about that, and he made a perfectly clear response. He is opposed to equal rights for Gays. I think he is also opposed to equal rights for other groups, and that he favors the rights of the powerful to exercise unrestrained power.

    And, That IS the Republican Position on corporate power.

    Comment by Karl Leuba — December 24, 2011 @ 11:29 am - December 24, 2011

  38. Karl, please provide your evidence for Newt’s opposition to “equal rights” for gay people as well as for, as your contend, also opposing “equal rights for other groups.”

    Yes, he opposes state recognition of same-sex marriage, but so then does Obama.

    And if this is your big issue, I’m assuming then you must be a big fan of Dick Cheney. At least we have that in common.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 24, 2011 @ 11:38 am - December 24, 2011

  39. He is opposed to equal rights for Gays. I think he is also opposed to equal rights for other groups, and that he favors the rights of the powerful to exercise unrestrained power.

    And, That IS the Republican Position on corporate power.

    Comment by Karl Leuba — December 24, 2011 @ 11:29 am – December 24, 2011

    What a liar you are, little boy.

    You and your Barack Obama Party fully support corporations stealing from people. Indeed, you and your Barack Obama use CEOs that deliberately steal billions of dollars from consumers as your top advisors.

    Furthermore, you support and endorse tax cheats and welfare frauds.

    Do you have the balls to condemn that, little boy? No you don’t. You and your fellow LGBT liberals want to be able to lie, cheat, steal, dodge taxes, and take money from others. That’s your idea of “equal rights” — to be able to ignore the laws and take money from others at gunpoint because of your sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 24, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - December 24, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.