A Response to the Extreme Anti-Gay Comments by My Brother, Newt Gingrich

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it."

By Candace Gingrich, Human Rights Campaign

Note: This letter to Newt Gingrich from his sister is prompted by his outrageous statement on Nov. 14 to Fox News's Bill O' Reilly: "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."

Dear Newt,

I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protesters of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."

However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.

This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at <a href="http://www.hrc.org/">Human Rights Campaign call Generation Equality</a>. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.

These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.

This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.

Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.

Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.

What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.

Candace Gingrich is senior youth outreach manager for Human Rights Campaign.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/108310/a_re..._newt_gingrich/

Edited November 24, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[IAMX 3,055]

Sadly, the acceptance of gay marriage as a fundamental right by society is lagging a bit (much further behind the coastal areas of, say, Central/Northern Cal), but clearly progress is happening. When you don't have the right to be yourself and be treated equally, you fight for the right until you get it. So it seems gay marriage will, in most states, be afforded through striking down gay marriage bans in court, before a much larger, wider acceptance that can make it be afforded in writing, rather than de facto.

As gays get married, this will ultimately be in history books much like African American history as a signal, lesson, or rub-in-the-face to people who were too slow to adapt to a modern 21st century evolved way of thinking. And really all the people (the people left, that is) who fought so hard against this will accomplish is an even larger lesson, larger piece of the history books, larger commemorations on the calendar (maybe a Gay History Month), all for the gay rights movement, the longer this drags on.

Edited November 24, 2008 by SRVT

[rocks 494]

Note: This letter to Newt Gingrich from his sister is prompted by his outrageous statement on Nov. 14 to Fox News's Bill O' Reilly: "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."

Dear Newt,

I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protesters of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."

However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.

because no one has ever imposed their will on anyone here, right? gay people are the first to do it. there are no preachers trying to impose on my life (if only) and more importantly there are definitely no gay bashers who use violence to express their dislike of homosexuality. ya, none of that stuff is real...

[alienlovechild 75]

Sadly, the acceptance of gay marriage as a fundamental right by society is lagging a bit (much further behind the coastal areas of, say, Central/Northern Cal), but clearly progress is happening.

But more "advanced" than around 180 other countries.

When you don't have the right to be yourself and be treated equally, you fight for the right until you get it.

A "right" that only first came about in 2000 is hardly fundemental.

As gays get married, this will ultimately be in history books much like African American history as a signal, lesson, or rub-in-the-face to people who were too slow to adapt to a modern 21st century evolved way of thinking.

Blacks didn't for vote or so I'm told so they don't see themselves in the same league.

And really all the people (the people left, that is) who fought so hard against this will accomplish is an even larger lesson, larger piece of the history books, larger commemorations on the calendar (maybe a Gay History Month), all for the gay rights movement, the longer this drags on.

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

[IAMX 3,055]

But more "advanced" than around 180 other countries.

For a nation that supposedly prides itself on "freedoms", it's clear there's one dirty secret about those freedoms -- they're only for certain people. Being one of those privileged, while heterosexual males, the only bane being non-religious, I'm pretty much hassle-free in life. It sure is great to live your life free of this hassle, then for a good portion, to be oblivious to how it is to be privileged, versus being pushed down below others.

A "right" that only first came about in 2000 is hardly fundemental.

Others took a while too. Clearly it's afforded in the 14th Amendment, however, all states being signatories of this amendment.

Blacks didn't for vote or so I'm told so they don't see themselves in the same league.

Well, I'm sure Black's rights all waited for the majority of whites to support their freedoms, right?

Gay rights aren't waiting for Blacks.

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

No more than the usual writing that was done during history involving African Americans. Last I checked, the history I was involved in throughout high school in 1996-2000 didn't involve Black d*cks, so you can rest your paranoia for the sake of logic. Or not, doesn't matter to me.

Edited November 24, 2008 by SRVT

[kaydee457 13]

Sadly, the acceptance of gay marriage as a fundamental right by society is lagging a bit (much further behind the coastal areas of, say, Central/Northern Cal), but clearly progress is happening. When you don't have the right to be yourself and be treated equally, you fight for the right until you get it. So it seems gay marriage will, in most states, be afforded through striking down gay marriage bans in court, before a much larger, wider acceptance that can make it be afforded in writing, rather than de facto.

As gays get married, this will ultimately be in history books much like African American history as a signal, lesson, or rub-in-the-face to people who were too slow to adapt to a modern 21st century evolved way of thinking. And really all the people (the people left, that is) who fought so hard against this will accomplish is an even larger lesson, larger piece of the history books, larger commemorations on the calendar (maybe a Gay History Month), all for the gay rights movement, the longer this drags on.

You mean as in California where the people largely oppose it and have voted so but a handful of Liberal Judges will legislate approval of such laws in defiance, because as we all know liberals always know what's best for the majority of us.

[rocks 494]

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

very funny. i'm sure something like breast cancer awareness month (also october) would be more appropriate.

[IAMX 3,055]

Sadly, the acceptance of gay marriage as a fundamental right by society is lagging a bit (much further behind the coastal areas of, say, Central/Northern Cal), but clearly progress is happening. When you don't have the right to be yourself and be treated equally, you fight for the right until you get it. So it seems gay marriage will, in most states, be afforded through striking down gay marriage bans in court, before a much larger, wider acceptance that can make it be afforded in writing, rather than de facto.

As gays get married, this will ultimately be in history books much like African American history as a signal, lesson, or rub-in-the-face to people who were too slow to adapt to a modern 21st century evolved way of thinking. And really all the people (the people left, that is) who fought so hard against this will accomplish is an even larger lesson, larger piece of the history books, larger commemorations on the calendar (maybe a Gay History Month), all for the gay rights movement, the longer this drags on.

You mean as in California where the people largely oppose it and have voted so but a handful of Liberal Judges will legislate approval of such laws in defiance, because as we all know liberals always know what's best for the majority of us.

This "largely" is more like "barely". Just to clear it up, a 10% drop in support for banning gay marriage, and barely passing, isn't exactly overwhelming. It shows more voters are being tolerant of it.

So how do you want it? You want it to keep being overturned and re-voted on? It will eventually fail. Or, do you want it overturned in court and de facto marriage until it can be written in (remember it DID pass the California legislature, the first of any state ultimately to be veto'd by Ahnold). Might only wait for a Democratic governor until it passes legislature and gay marriage is put into the Constitution. There is nothing here that is in favor of opponents to gay marriage. So the only accomplishment you achieve by fighting futility is a much larger backlash and your kids being forced to read more about it in history books. You people just have a way of shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

very funny. i'm sure something like breast cancer awareness month (also october) would be more appropriate.

Maybe they can show a pic of alien with his head up his a s s. That would sum things up nicely, and save paper.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sadly, the acceptance of gay marriage as a fundamental right by society is lagging a bit (much further behind the coastal areas of, say, Central/Northern Cal), but clearly progress is happening. When you don't have the right to be yourself and be treated equally, you fight for the right until you get it. So it seems gay marriage will, in most states, be afforded through striking down gay marriage bans in court, before a much larger, wider acceptance that can make it be afforded in writing, rather than de facto.

As gays get married, this will ultimately be in history books much like African American history as a signal, lesson, or rub-in-the-face to people who were too slow to adapt to a modern 21st century evolved way of thinking. And really all the people (the people left, that is) who fought so hard against this will accomplish is an even larger lesson, larger piece of the history books, larger commemorations on the calendar (maybe a Gay History Month), all for the gay rights movement, the longer this drags on.

You mean as in California where the people largely oppose it and have voted so but a handful of Liberal Judges will legislate approval of such laws in defiance, because as we all know liberals always know what's best for the majority of us.

Next time the vote is held, you can whine about gays the other way around too.

Link to actual 2008 numbers by CA county.

Actual Map.

[mRx 16]

The Government shouldn't be favoring any particular group, including married couples.

The gays didn't have their rights taken away from them. They simply aren't given the same special benefits that straight married couples enjoy. They aren't alone either. What about single people? What about couples that have no desire to marry? When will they too be privilaged by government favoritism?

My point is, the government should see all as equal: married couples, gay married couples, gay civil unions, straight civil unions, single people, etc. This'll never happen though....

[HAL 9000 96]

The Government shouldn't be favoring any particular group, including married couples.

The gays didn't have their rights taken away from them. They simply aren't given the same special benefits that straight married couples enjoy. They aren't alone either. What about single people? What about couples that have no desire to marry? When will they too be privilaged by government favoritism?

My point is, the government should see all as equal: married couples, gay married couples, gay civil unions, straight civil unions, single people, etc. This'll never happen though....

Hey Matt

IMO, the gays just want to be recognized legally like the rest of us.

[kaydee457 13]

This "largely" is more like "barely". Just to clear it up, a 10% drop in support for banning gay marriage, and barely passing, isn't exactly overwhelming. It shows more voters are being tolerant of it.

Nevertheless it's still the will of the people. It's no more a "right" to marry same sex as it is a "right" to marry children, or an animal, except possibly in California of course.

It's not discriminatory to exclude gay marriage and comparing gay marriage issues to the struggle of the black's civil rights movement simply trivializes their struggle. Gays are not subject to the inequities and discrimination of the blacks. Gays are allowed civil unions in most states. The sticking point seems to be the redefinition of what "marriage" means in this society. There's not much chance of redefinition given this country is a predominately Christian nation.

Liberals never speak of the socio economic impact of changing the laws to allow such marriages and there are many. From tax implications to estates. They speak only of the emotional implications and depict gay right issues as having no impact. That's simply untrue.

[HAL 9000 96]

slip slip slip again

[IAMX 3,055]

This "largely" is more like "barely". Just to clear it up, a 10% drop in support for banning gay marriage, and barely passing, isn't exactly overwhelming. It shows more voters are being tolerant of it.

Nevertheless it's still the will of the people. It's no more a "right" to marry same sex as it is a "right" to marry children, or an animal, except possibly in California of course.

It's not discriminatory to exclude gay marriage and comparing gay marriage issues to the struggle of the black's civil rights movement simply trivializes their struggle. Gays are not subject to the inequities and discrimination of the blacks. Gays are allowed civil unions in most states. The sticking point seems to be the redefinition of what "marriage" means in this society. There's not much chance of redefinition given this country is a predominately Christian nation.

Liberals never speak of the socio economic impact of changing the laws to allow such marriages and there are many. From tax implications to estates. They speak only of the emotional implications and depict gay right issues as having no impact. That's simply untrue.

Try being gay and getting a marriage license with your partner. There goes the nonsense about them being equal. And how much of a Christian, or Muslim, or Atheist, or Agnostic country is irrelevant to rights. We don't go asking the churches for who should be given rights, and rightfully so.

I don't care for the emotional aspects, which is why I don't bother listening to the tripe from slippery slope conservatives citing animal<=>human marriages and polygamy, the latter of which ironically is something you should take up with a certain religion that favors polygamy (and opposes gay marriage), the former should be taken up with rural farm people who also overwhelmingly do not favor gay marriage anyways.

Edited November 24, 2008 by SRVT

[alienlovechild 75]

For a nation that supposedly prides itself on "freedoms", it's clear there's one dirty secret about those freedoms -- they're only for certain people. Being one of those privileged, while heterosexual males, the only bane being non-religious, I'm pretty much hassle-free in life. It sure is great to live your life free of this hassle, then for a good portion, to be oblivious to how it is to be privileged, versus being pushed down below others.

Gays don't hassle people? Check out the TV coverage they have equal ability to piss people off and are more likely to get away with it.

Blacks didn't for vote or so I'm told so they don't see themselves in the same league.

Well, I'm sure Black's rights all waited for the majority of whites to support their freedoms, right?

Gay rights aren't waiting for Blacks.

If the Obama election meant anything it was that you've got to be able to appeal to enough of the majority to win and the gay movement isn't going win over a lot of people with tactics that turn off people who may have been sympathatic.

I'm sure Gay History Month will be a real crowd pleaser in a lot school districts. Think of the charming class assignments for the kiddies. What sort of visual representations can we expect to represent the month?

No more than the usual writing that was done during history involving African Americans. Last I checked, the history I was involved in throughout high school in 1996-2000 didn't involve Black d*cks, so you can rest your paranoia for the sake of logic. Or not, doesn't matter to me.

Your sexual orientation isn't where I going here and I certainly didn't see porno images of black men for Black History Month in high school. The fact you couldn't come with a single serious image of a Gay History Month tells me most of the movement is as serious in tone as a gay rights parade.