«
»

UPDATED: Newt Gingrich didn’t exactly say “all gays should vote for Obama.” There’s more to the story. [Transcript & video added]

Posted 21 Dec 2011 in 2012 election, homosexuality, Newt Gingrich

Note: I fired off this blog post after reading several corroborating accounts and being very disappointed by them. But I stand corrected, thanks to some of my friends on Google+ who pointed me to some blogs which were reporting the entire story, not just a few sensationalistic words from the conversation. (That’s what I get when I try to rush a post during my lunch break)

My original post follows, as well as an update with a video and the transcript of the conversation.

—

Things like this puts Newt Gingrich in the same homophobic boat as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.

“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University.”

Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker has made about gay and lesbians.

“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest, it’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side — that he doesn’t need your support,” Arnold said.

Gingrich has been married three times, two ending after his adultery. [emphasis added]

Gingrich, who has a half sister who is a lesbian, has previously said in Iowa that same-sex marriage “is a temporary aberration that will dissipate.”  In his letter to The Family Leader this month, he advocated a federal constitutional amendment that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

“It doesn’t inspire hope at all,” Arnold said of Gingrich’s statements. “And if that’s what he’s trying to do and that’s what he’s trying to say, that this is a collective effort if he’s elected president, yet he tells me to support the other side?”

The man asked Gingrich a fair question: If he’s to be president, how would he represent gay Americans? Just because someone dislikes the notion of gay marriage shouldn’t mean that they get to treat gays like second-class citizens or dismiss them out-of-hand over a singular issue. There should be equality under the law. That’s what Republicans are supposed to stand for. Whether Newt (or anyone else) believes homosexuality is a sin should be irrelevant when it comes to the way our government treats its citizens. Our government shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing religious dogma, only in protecting the rights of  all Americans.

Besides, Newt Gingrich’s unseemly personal record doesn’t lend much credence to those arguing for “the sanctity of marriage” in their attempts to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Nobody’s asking Newt to engage in homosexual behavior, just to protect the same civil rights (property ownership, inheritance rights, the right to be with a loved one in the hospital, etc) that heterosexuals possess. One can protect the basic rights of one’s fellow Americans without endorsing or embracing their lifestyle. For someone who has been heralding GOP’s new, bigger “big tent,” Newt sure is quick to push gays out of it.

I hadn’t yet decided whom to support now that Herman Cain is out of the race. But unless there’s more to this story that what we’re reading here, Newt just lost me.

—

UPDATE: Thanks to some of my friends on Google+, here’s a transcript of the exchange between Gingrich and Arnold. As I suspected, there IS more to this than has been reported by the mainstream media. [emphasis added below]

If gay marriage is a voter’s primary issue in the 2012 election, then Newt Gingrich says it’s perfectly okay not to vote for him in a would-be battle against President Obama.

Speaking in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Tuesday afternoon, Gingrich was confronted by a man who asked the former House speaker how he planned to engage with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender who agree with him on other issues, but not on Gingrich’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

In a cordial exchange, Gingrich said on that issue, there’s little room for engagement. The two then agreed to disagree.

Here’s how the conversation went down:

Gingrich: “I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it’s not the central issue in their life, 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.”

Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

Gingrich: Then I won’t get their support.

Q: How do we engage if you’re elected. Then what, what does that mean?

Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

Q: Except it’s most important (some crosstalk).

Gingrich: Well, if that’s most important to you then you should be for Obama.

Q: I am, thank you (The two men shake hands).

Gingrich: It’s perfectly legitimate. I think it’s perfectly legitimate.

Here’s the video of their conversation. (h/t: Legal Insurrection)

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment