Newt Gingrich and Gay Marriage

So I saw Newt Gingrich on The Daily Show today, and I kinda wanted to know his whole back story. I remember him being vilified in the media when I was younger, but never knew why. Anyways, I looked him up on wikipedia and read about the controversy along with some other random facts, but nothing really about his political stance on divisive issues; for this, I had to go to Newt's own website. I overheard him mentioning something about the environment, so I looked it up, and guess what! Newt Gingrich actually wants to cut back on carbon emissions, and has really (no, really) written an entire book titled "A Contract With the Earth" that pleads for a bipartisan approach to saving the environment. What a standup guy. Except that the rest of his views on policy and social issues are a direct inhibition of my freedom. Ok, here it comes: gay marriage.

American Solutions, a 527 group (these groups try to influence public office elections, thanks wikipedia) that was created by Newt Gingrich had this to say on its website

"Every time a court defines a new right or creates new meaning beyond that created by the executive and legislative branch, it undermines the rule of law and the ability of a free people to govern themselves. When the court steps back and limits itself to objective interpretation of the law, it puts power in the hands of the people. It gives them the ability to define for themselves what laws and standards they will live by, so long as they act within Constitutional bounds. When judges rewrite the law as they see fit, our entire system of laws becomes subjective and loses the authority it is meant to have."

First off, I just have to mention how neatly tucked away this was in a hard to find figurative corner of the website, and how intentionally vague the rhetoric is here. At no point is the phrase "gay marriage" mentioned. Nor is the word "gay" or even "constitutional amendment." With careful reading, however, it is blatantly hypocritical and misleading.

In the first and fourth sentences, judges are vilified as "law-tamperers" who create rights without regard for consequence. Not only that, but it also undermines your freedom! Not so much. Judges are actually interpreters of law, not creators. Let us not forget that only fifty years ago, judges "rewrote" the laws. They tore down the "authority" of those laws based on "subjective" interpretations. You remember that don't you? Desegregation? The Civil Rights Movement? As for undermining freedom, when a judge rules against gay marriage, or a state votes in and gay marriage ban, I lose a freedom. I guess the social sanctions for being a homosexual aren't enough, they must also be institutionalized through law to ensure that future generations of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans are ostracized. It's not only a conservative mindset, it's the law.

The second and third sentences are a bit trickier to decipher, but it's all clearly there if you read it carefully. The second sentence specifically is an attempt at heightening emotion. It uses strong, evocative rhetoric to rouse feeling from the reader. "Objective interpretation" (which, let's be honest, isn't that what courts and judges are supposed to do? Of course we all want that!) of the law is what "puts power in the hands of the people" (nice alliteration, huh? If only they could have used 'paws' instead of 'hands'). The opening half of the third sentence says that if judges acted accordingly, the people could fully govern themselves and live their lives exactly the way they want to...so long as they "act within Constitutional bounds." What a great idea! So, as long as I don't do what the constitution specifically says I can't, I can live my life the way I want to, right? Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Even without a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, states such as Georgia (where I live) do have amendments or statutes preventing same sex marriage. The federal Constitution says nothing about the definition of marriage as far as I can remember. In fact, the main part I do remember is about equality of man, and the basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I am in no way making the plight of the Civil Rights Era synonymous with the struggle for marriage equality, the two are analogous, at least in unconstitutionality. The nationwide debate and state referendums on gay marriage over the past six years have created a new era of "Jim Crow-esque" laws being used to deny GLBT citizens their rights. "Johnny Rainbow Laws," if you will.

So thanks, Newt Gingrich, for your concern about the environment, it is much appreciated I'm sure. However, for basically everything else you stand for (including the integration of church and state, which don't get me wrong, I'm a religious guy, but that's ridiculous) I think you couldn't be farther from what truly represents myself and many others as citizens of Georgia. Your close-minded perspective is only another example of the traditional, fundamentalist viewpoint that has keep America socially stagnant and politically mired despite being in the face of revolutionary innovations in technology, health, and communication over the past eight years.