“Newt Gingrich said that conservatives will have to accept marriage equality after three more states this year voted to allow same sex marriage and more will likely do the same in the 2014 election,” NEWSMAX is reporting.
Let me see if I understand Gingrich’s logic. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions. Thirty states that have voted on the homosexual marriage issue voted against it. That’s 30 to 3. Even California voters opposed homosexual marriage. The three states that voted for homosexual marriage are solidly pro-Democrat states as are the states that have made homosexual legal by statute.
“Gingrich said the GOP will need to accept that same sex marriage ‘is in every family, it is in every community,’ and that Americans in increasing numbers find no issue with allowing it—as proven by voters on election day.”
What does the three-time married Gingrich think would happen if the GOP accepted the irrational and immoral practice of homosexual marriage? One of the main reasons Mitt Romney lost the election was due to his unwillingness to speak out on social issues. His voting record in Massachusetts on abortion and homosexuality made him a pariah to a lot of conservatives.
Gingrich is a smart man, but his argument that the GOP should accept homosexual marriage because homosexuality is in every family and in every community is moral madness. A similar argument could be used for theft, child abuse, pedophilia, rape, divorce, drug dealing, and maybe even murder. There are many more people (about 50 percent) who have embraced the welfare state, so should the GOP support more welfare spending?
I’ve always maintained that the reason some people support homosexual behavior and marriage is that it allows them to make sexual choices that were once equally shunned. Newt is on his third wife. He wants to run for president again. If the GOP caves on the homosexual issue, there won’t be any reason to judge Gingrich on his multiple wives.
Marriage is a creation ordinance. The State does not define marriage just like it does define what constitutes life. From the beginning, marriage is defined by God as being between a man and a woman. This is the norm. Even the sexual equipment of men and women tell us as much. Men and women were designed to be sexually compatible. Their “equipment” fits together.
Homosexuality, like fornication in general, has a long history, but to sanction the behavior by the State does not have history, morality, or rationality on its side.
At a 2011 appearance in Columbus, Ohio, Gingrich said, “In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.” It seems that Newt changes religious beliefs like he changes wives. ((Jeff Zeleny, “On the Stump, Gingrich Puts Focus on Faith,” The New York Times (February 26, 2011).))