News | Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich Says Religious Rights are Being 'Outlawed' by the Gay Movement: VIDEO


On a segment on gay rights on Meet the Press today, Newt Gingrich complained about Catholic adoption agencies being "outlawed" in some states where marriage equality laws take effect. MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid pointed out that it was the Church's decision to withdraw its services.

GINGRICH: "What I'm struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts. They're outlawed. There are no rights in DC for Catholics to have adoption service. They're outlawed. This passing reference to religion, we sort of respect religion, sure, as long as you don't practice it. I mean I think it would be good to have a debate over, you know, beyond this question of, 'Are you able to be gay in America?' what does it mean? Does it mean that you have to actually affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that, and therefore, you're now going to have a secular state say to a wide range of religious groups, Catholics, Protestants, orthodox Jews, Mormons, frankly, Muslims, 'You cannot practice your religion the way you believe it, and we will outlaw your institutions.' ... Let's just start with adoption services. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to have an adoption service in Massachusetts that follows Catholic doctrine.

JOY-ANN REID: But didn't the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston, they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

GINGRICH: No, they withdrew them because they were told, "You could not follow Catholic doctrine," which is for marriage between a man and a woman.

REID: I think the point is, is that you don't have the state attempting to tell religions what to believe. People, if they oppose the idea of gay marriage within their religion, have the absolute right to do so. The question is whether or not religious institutions can make public policy, whether they can enter the public policy--


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I saw this. And unless I missed it, no one confronted him on the fact that the agencies chose to drop out of adopting because they could not continue to take taxpayers' money while discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Nor did anyone ask him how he had become such an expert on RC policies since he only recently converted to Roman Catholicism so he could marry his third wife, a Roman Catholic woman with whom he was having adulterous sex, in an RC wedding.

    Posted by: john patrick | May 5, 2013 5:21:07 PM

  2. There is a mormon adoption agency in Massachusetts which does not accept state money, and does not allow adoption by gay people. The state is completely unconcerned with this.

    Posted by: Ben in Oakland | May 5, 2013 5:26:17 PM

  3. Why does anyone invite this blowhard to appear on TV or anywhere else? His relevance ended in the mid-1990s, right around when Clinton showed him to be a crybaby about where he sat on planes and his Contract with America went down the toilet.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 5, 2013 5:27:33 PM

  4. Yes, John Patrick, you're right. Newt is completely leaving out the inconvenient (for him) fact that the Catholic adoption agencies were receiving public money. Catholic agencies can do as they please when they are using private money. If not enough contributors exist to fund Catholic adoption agencies why is this the fault of the gay community? Memo to Newt: it isn't.

    And which "rights" would gays be taking away from people? The right to leave two wives for younger more appealing women while talking about "family values?"

    Keep digging, Newt. Keep digging........ On the other hand, don't. In the pile you're digging in you may discover you're FOURTH wife.

    Posted by: Mary | May 5, 2013 5:31:52 PM

  5. Gingrich, of course, lied - the issue regarding adoption was not religious beliefs but secular actions. Furthermore, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage by overturning Proposition 22 (the predecessor to Proposition 8), the court decision specifically stated that religious institutions would not be required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, citing a precedent. Bending over backwards to not interfere with the practice of religion is not good enough for these people - they want a theocracy, with only one sect in charge (of course, they won't agree as to which sect that is).

    Posted by: Bill | May 5, 2013 5:39:30 PM

  6. @john Patrick-
    "no one confronted him on the fact that the agencies chose to drop out of adopting"

    Right from the text above:

    JOY-ANN REID: But didn't the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston, they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

    Posted by: kelehe | May 5, 2013 6:10:51 PM

  7. Newtie's colossal blind spots aside, we've all seen clinical homophobes concoct a vast array of justifications for their bitter neuroses and sad delusions. Crying "Victim!!" is one of their favorites. Personal and institutional beliefs are not relevant here, fair and equal treatment of people is the one and only requirement. If an agency cannot or will not fulfill it, they cannot engage in business.

    Posted by: Onnyjay | May 5, 2013 6:12:44 PM

  8. @Bill - Newt also lied because the laws requiring equal adoption rights for LGBT human beings were passed at least a decade BEFORE marriage equality in MA and Catholic Charities in Boston placed a baker's dozen children with same-sex couples in the 10 years before marriage equality. When the new head of the Church, Sean O'Malley, found out the allegedly secular charity was treating gays and lesbians as human beings, he insisted that they stop. In response to this unprecedented interference, 20% of the charity's BOD quit in protest.

    Then again, what can you expect from a man who "married" the woman he paid to give him hummers for 6 years while she undermined his then marriage - and the Catholic Church recognizes them as a validly married couple.

    Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 5, 2013 6:26:24 PM

  9. Once again on an NBC network is there a discussion about gay people and not a single gay person is there.

    Posted by: Billy Crytical | May 5, 2013 6:29:43 PM

  10. Newt knows better than to bite Caesar's hand like this. If discriminating, unruly, lawless, contemptuous religion refuses to police itself in this country - the state will be all to glad to do it for them at premium prices. Religion is not "exempt" from American law. If they refuse to pay, shut them down until they do. It's all very simple. Let full taxation commence.

    Posted by: Christophe | May 5, 2013 6:43:37 PM

  11. The Catholic Church also says something about his serial adultery and repeated remarrying. But of course he bought himself an annulment so it became magically ok.

    Posted by: Steve | May 5, 2013 6:56:45 PM

  12. personally, i'd like to see the religious right's right to deny me my rights be outlawed.

    Posted by: alguien | May 5, 2013 6:56:47 PM

  13. Is Newt even capable of telling the truth? And how is this man a Catholic and on wife #3 who he was screwing while married to wife #2. What a hypocrite. Why does anyone listen to him at all?

    Posted by: Houndentenor | May 5, 2013 7:07:57 PM

  14. Note how comparable this is to the argument over Catholic employers wanting to opt out of birth control, etc. In that case they pull the "religious oppression" card instead of facing what it is, a labor rights issue.

    Posted by: melvin | May 5, 2013 7:08:32 PM

  15. The RCC shuttled known child rapists around the country where they continued to rape children. That's a crime. It went on for decades. It's a criminal organization. Until they turn over all files and purge anyone who had anything to do with these atrocities the RCC should not be respected by decent people. To complain that the church is being persecuted when the truth is that it got away with multiple felonies is outrageous.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | May 5, 2013 7:10:03 PM

  16. Where were these "religious rights" when Utah wanted to become a state?

    Posted by: Randy | May 5, 2013 7:20:18 PM

  17. I take jock itch more seriously than the Gingrich That Stole Human Decency.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | May 5, 2013 7:33:20 PM

  18. "discriminating, unruly, lawless, contemptuous religion..."

    Christophe, the problem with these adjectives is that most Americans will apply them to gays in a conflict between gays and religion. Gingrich is trying to set up a conflict between traditional religion and gay rights in order to score political points for the Republican party. Unfortunately, you seem determined to take the bait.

    There is nothing he'd love better than to hear the gay community call for taxation of churches. You should grant religions any exemptions they want until gay rights becomes non-controversial. It neutralizes the opposition. Secular society's informal rules will prevail over time. Cpirt fights on these mini-issues can wait until the public has evolved further. Gay rights is a long-term movement, trying to change centuries of what it perceives as inhumane treamtment of gay people. Judged historically, granting these exemptions is a small price to pay for seeing gay right move forward and not end up a a no-win war with Christianity - a force that has been around for centuries and has far more adherents.

    Posted by: Mary | May 5, 2013 7:36:53 PM

  19. No they were told that they cannot continue to receive tax funding if they were going to illegally discriminate against tax payers. Big difference. LGBT people pay taxes, the agencies receive tax funding - therefore LGBT tax payers own part of the agencies. When your employer pays you, you have no right to say no or you are fired. It really is that simple. The churches can do whatever to whomever they want but not with my money.

    Posted by: RMc | May 5, 2013 7:56:37 PM

  20. Yes, RMc, I agree with you. I was talking about tax-exemption for churches - a separate issue. However, even on issues like religious agencies that receive government funding there is a risk in taking away the funding. Justice doesn't always prevail right away. A lot of the progress on SSM came because the concept of civil unions was used to get people used to the idea of legally-recognized gay relationships. If we'd just tried to jump to gay marriage from the start, progress would have occured more slowly.

    Posted by: Mary | May 5, 2013 8:11:25 PM

  21. @Kelehe.... The point was that no one mentioned the fact that the Catholic Charity could have stayed in business and continued to DISCRIMINATE against gays as long as they didn't take any public money. AS long as they just used their own money, they could do whatever they wanted.

    Posted by: anonymous | May 5, 2013 8:14:14 PM

  22. As others have said: public money, public rules; private money, private rules. Their choice. Quite simple. The choice they want--public money to fund a special right to discriminate based on religious beliefs that are out of step with contemporary society--can only be sold with lies, the one thing fat old cheater Newt is skilled at.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 5, 2013 8:30:21 PM

  23. Why is it EVERY news program treats these bigots as if they haven't a clue when every single one of us can rattle off numerous facts about how they're full of it.

    No, Newt, your beloved child-molestation festering, big nelly queen closet cases running around telling everyone how wrong it is to be gay was NOT forced to shut down, they chose to shut down after realizing if they were going to take tax-payers monies then they would have to follow the law.

    And, btw, yes you can most definitely put on par the religious cries about homosexuality to that of interracial marriage decades ago since they're still using the same argument.

    Again, though, why is it these networks allow these homophobes to go unchecked??? It's not like it's a big secret on how full of crap their arguments are.

    Posted by: Michael | May 5, 2013 8:38:02 PM

  24. Karl Rove's dancing partner,Dancin' David Gregory is a dunce. Politicians and lobbyists regularly come on Meet The Press and spin lies and obfuscate with impunity. Gregory is a moron and paid corporate whore. He wont challenge anything or anyone that threaten his paycheck or D.C. insider status. Betsy Fisher MTP Executive producer is a right wing a-hole. She constantly books John McCain, Newt Gingrich,Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins

    Posted by: KevinSF | May 5, 2013 8:45:31 PM

  25. @Bill
    Attempts at theocracy is an unheeded boiling pot in this country.

    Gingrich has no commendable moral compass and should have been recognized for his irrelevance a long while ago and yet shamefully he's a regular on the network talking heads circuit.

    Posted by: JONES | May 5, 2013 9:00:55 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Esera Tuaolo and Brendon Ayanbadejo Discuss Gay Pro Athletes on 'Face the Nation': VIDEO« «