1. john patrick says

    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.

  2. Ben in Oakland says

    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.

  3. Paul R says

    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.

  4. Mary says

    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.

  5. Bill says

    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).

  6. kelehe says

    @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.

  7. Onnyjay says

    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.

  8. CPT_Doom says

    @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.

  9. Christophe says

    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.

  10. Steve says

    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.

  11. Houndentenor says

    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?

  12. melvin says

    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.

  13. Houndentenor says

    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.

  14. Mary says

    “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.

  15. RMc says

    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.

  16. Mary says

    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.

  17. anonymous says

    @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.

  18. says

    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.

  19. Michael says

    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.

  20. KevinSF says

    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

  21. JONES says

    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.

  22. David says

    I too am sickened by these news programs who invite liars and bigots onto their panels and never challenge them on the vile hate speak that comes out of their mouths. For Newt Gingrich to believe that he has the moral authority to lecture others on marriage is outrageous.

  23. Greg says

    The man who has been divorced twice and married 3 times is worried about discrimination about the Catholic church? The church that shouldn’t even recognize his current marriage to his former mistress?

  24. ophu says

    So what he’s griping about, basically, is that these organizations are being denied the right to deny rights.

    It’s a good thing for him he isn’t catholic (or is he?) – he’d probably still be stuck in his first unhappy marriage.

  25. Michael says

    For once in our lives can’t ANYONE just say the obvious? I mean, how hard would it to be, in this situation,

    “So, Newt, you’re on your 3rd marriage so technically the RCC should NOT recognize your marriage but the RCC, and EVERYONE else, doesn’t have a problem in viewing it as a valid marriage. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to use the religion excuse against gay people when that’s plainly not the real issue here?”

    I’m pretty sure I can speak for the entire LGBT community when I say I’m fed up with just about every news organization treating these bigots with kid’s gloves and lips to their ass cheeks.

  26. millerbeach says

    Newt? Telling others how to be righteous? Now THAT is funny! Don’t these “news” shows worry about credibility when they have clowns like Newt on their show, as a purported “expert”…of what, cheating on your spouse? Yeah, some defense of marriage there….what a freakin’ hypocrite.

  27. DannyEastVillage says

    Wrong card to play, Newt: “church doctrine” has been wrong plenty of times, and required a secularist corrective to get it straightened out–usually at least a century after the rest of us had moved on. Well, the same thing is happening now with respect to the place of gay people (and women, btw) in the church and the world.

    If those who formulate “church doctrine” had their way the earth would still be the center of the universe, pope would be the king of emperors and anyone who disagreed with popes would be subject to the rack–or the stake–or both–until they “recanted.” When “church doctrine” is an instrument of abuse, violation of human rights and of excusing the inexcusable, church doctrine belongs in the dustbin of history.

  28. deke says

    The Roman Catholic church is unique in the United States in that fully expect to drink from the public trough while making up their own rules and picking and choosing. Catholic Social Services wants to deny rights to people, but in fact they only deal with a small number of DC adoptions. Most other religious groups who want to opt out the rues, also opt out of the public money. Religious groups can believe whatever they like, but when they want to force everyone to comply with their doctrine, they have overstepped.

  29. LOL says

    How do you know Newt Gingrich is lying?

    His lips are moving.

    At no point was any Catholic adoption agency told they couldn’t operate.

    They are free, even today, to operate even with their anti-gay discriminatory policy.

    What they WERE told was that they could not receive government funds, if they weren’t willing to provide services to ALL customers.

    Newt Gingrich is essentially bemoaning the lack of government subsidy for his preferred religious corporations. Last time I checked, that’s socialism.

  30. Christophe says

    @ Mary: Thank you for your insight, good points, will try to see it that way. This does not lessen the fact that they are still behaving in a discriminating, unruly, lawless, contemptuous manner – and no one else is going to pay for that.

  31. Michael says

    Memo to Newt: We have a separation of Church and State because the Founding Fathers were prescient on the conflicts of beliefs. All religions are allowed to operate in America as long as they operate within the parameters of non-discrimination enacted. A particular religion not wishing to do so, is free to stay out of a particular endeavor within American society.

  32. anon says

    I take it this means Newt is planning on running in 2016. He’s one of several deluded souls that thinks they came in second in the Republican primary.

    The main issue here is that the Supreme Court of both the US and Mass. have both ruled that public funding that does not outwardly discriminate against a particular faith is okay (technically “discretionary”).

    Where Newt goes way off track is that adoption is not part of the Catholic faith or religious services. Adoption is a “charitable” service. It was one of several charitable services that used to make the Church a lot of money by getting state and federal grants. Providing adoption is not “practicing religion”. What the Church was doing was nebulously applying its values to the adoption process. It was also “building up” the Church by baptizing babies and making sure they ended up in Catholic homes.

    If Newt were willing to narrow his arguments to the social and cultural pressure on the Church to change it’s values, which has been going on since the Reformation, then he would have a point, however trite.

  33. walter says

    hey newt what does why so worried about the catholic church and its beliefs? didn’t seem to stop you from leaving a sick wive and getting a divorce twice. what only the parts of the religion you support are okay but ones you don’t it is okay to ignorant . please go run your moon colony already and leave the people on earth alone.

  34. Jerry6 says

    Let us not forget – especially POLITICIANS – The Roman Catholic Church, when they had complete control of Italy, every one of you people that are now opposing the Catholic Church’s policy on Gays would be in prison being drawn and quartered, or hung, or burned at the stake. Do you REALLY believe that they would not do the same today if they could get away with it?

  35. DC Arnold says

    With my newly granted powers from nitwit newt I will outlaw religion in any state or federal government capacity and rescind any tax free status. Put Nitwit in jail for retroactive adultery.

Leave A Reply