Newt Gingrich - Moral Authority?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
November 18, 2008 4:59pm CST
Former GOP Speaker of the House and thrice married Newt Gingrich had this to say on the O'Reilly Factor while discussing the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California and results protests about it:
"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."
Hello? "Gay and secular fascism"? Does anybody know what he even means by this and what are your thoughts about this comment?
Annie
2 people like this
6 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Nov 08
I would assume the violence witnessed in some prop 8 protests. the disruptions of church ceremomies. The physical attacks on Prop 8 supporters. the threats issued to prop 8 supporters. The groups demanding the federal government intervene in state affiars to over ride a states constitution and over turn prop 8 (whoa!). I guess that about covers it.
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
18 Nov 08
In any protest there are small groups who act out. Unfortunately, that is all we are seeing on the news. We are not seeing the numerous peaceful protests. It is the fault of the protesters, but it is propogandized by newt and his co horts.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Nov 08
it's not just Newt and his cohorts, it's main stream news, including abc and msnbc. Yes, there are a lot of peacefull protests. I recognize that. There are alot of pro proposition 8 protestors that have acted like arses too.
My BIG issue are the groups calling for federal intervention in the issue, THAT alone is frightening.
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
18 Nov 08
My point is that the idiots who are violently protesting are giving Newt and folks like him propoganda to use against the community as a whole.
And I understand them wanting to overturn Prop 8. It won't happen in the courts for they don't have jurisdiction(sp). The courts rendered the anti marraige law unconstitutional so the people changed the constitution to support it. It's just a last ditch effort. The next step is to get the constitution changed back. This is going to require education and patience. Not violence and disruption.
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
18 Nov 08
Gingrich is propogandizing the only thing that the media is showng us, which is violence and disruption in protests of prop 8. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the protests and protestors are peaceful and legal. People like Newt will take the worst of the media and make it appear that this is the whole. Talk about fascism.
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
19 Nov 08
No. Not surprised at all. I've seen all of the religious reich..I mean right, groups propogandizing this militant action. The activist groups need to approach the media. They are trying to sell their medium and violence, not peace, sells. But in doing this, they are harming the movement.
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
19 Nov 08
Newt Gingrich isn't exactly someone I take at face value. He's got too many skeletons in his closet to be complaining or explaining about those of others.
2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
19 Nov 08
Hmmm...Couldn't one replace gay and secular fascism with christian values? I think that the question, would we put desegregation on a ballot and allow for a vote, or would we have put the whole black white marriage on the ballot, no we didn't so why are we putting this on the ballot. Interesting...
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
21 Nov 08
That's a great point and I don't know why others don't see it that way. Why should anyone get a vote on something that has NO impact on their lives at all? What if someone decided only a left-hander can marry another left-hander? Or redheads can only marry blonds, or any other ridiculous example you can think of?
Does anyone else recall Newt Gingrich politicizing the Susan Smith case (the mother who murdered her two children after claiming they'd been abducted by a black man) by saying the only way to prevent that kind of thing from happening again was to vote for Republicans in 1994?
Annie
1 person likes this
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
19 Nov 08
I could be wrong, but I think what he's saying is that even though the majority was in favor of keeping marriage between a man and a woman, the homosexuals refuse to accept the results and if they have to use terrorism to get their way, they will. In that way they are trying to dictate policy instead of bowing to the will of the people.
