Commentary Politics

Thrice-Married Newt Gingrich Pledges to Uphold Marriage While Billboard Applauds Him for Cheating

Martha Kempner

The same week that Newt Gingrich agrees to "uphold the institution of marriage through fidelity in his own marriage," an online dating site congratulates the thrice-married candidate for his own infidelity and suggests that Americans have finally realized that extramarital affairs are not political deal breakers.

This week Newt Gingrich promised the Iowa-based Family Group that he would “uphold the institution of marriage.” Though Gingrich didn’t sign the 14-point pledge that some of his opponents (namely Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum) signed, he did send a letter to the group in which he agreed to defend marriage “through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.”  This includes “vigorously supporting the Defense of Marriage Act” (also known as DOMA), which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  In his letter, Gingrich reminds the group that DOMA was passed under his leadership. 

At the same time he was assuring Iowa voters that he would never support gay marriage and promising Callista that he would not cheat on her, a billboard went up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania reminding voters that he had cheated with her.  As we all know by now, the current Mrs. Gingrich is Newt’s third wife and their relationship started while he was still married to Mrs. Gingrich Number Two. The billboard is not the work of one of his opponents though I imagine they’d be pleased to see it.  (In the last debate some did make sure to subtly bring up this topic—Rick Perry, for example, suggested that “If you cheat on your wife, you’ll cheat on your business partner.”)  It’s not the work of some of the conservative groups who fear that his past dalliances make him unfit to be President. (Though an editorial in the conservative National Review points out that “Very few people with a personal history like his—two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses—have ever tried running for president.”)  And, it’s not the work of any groups or politicians on the left who would likely be pleased to bring up one of the former Speaker’s many hypocrisies. 

I suppose technically, the billboard is not political at all.  It’s an advertisement.  An advertisement for an online dating service called Ashleymadison.com which describes itself as the “the world’s premier extra-marital dating site” and boasts “12 million members” in “17 countries.”  The billboard shows a determined looking Gingrich fist in the air with the copy “Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Spouse. Welcome to the Ashleymadison.com era.”  In a press release, the site’s CEO suggests that the rising support for Gingrich proves that Americans now understand, “that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone’s ability to do a job. Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come.  He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage.”

In many ways I agree with Ms. Biderman. Though I’m not sure I would be proud to run a website that actively promotes and facilitates extramarital affairs, I do believe that having had an affair has no bearing on whether you can do your job.  I’m not a big fan of lying or breaking promises but I think that marriages are private and complicated, that couples come to their own agreements—spoken and unspoken—about how they’re going to behave, and that no one outside that marriage has the right to judge.   

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Had he not been responsible for the passage of DOMA when he was Speaker and signed a marriage pledge this week, I might actually be using this column to defend Gingrich.  If he hadn’t done those things, I might be using this column to say that cheating on wife one with wife two and wife two with wife three is not actually a reason, as some do, that he could not be President. (Suggesting poor children in public schools serve as janitors might be but I digress.)

But Newt’s right to do what he pleases with relationships stops in my mind when he starts dictating and legislating what other people can and can’t do in theirs.  He faced no barriers in getting into a legal marriage with his first wife when he presumably thought he wanted to live with her for the rest of his life and no problem getting out of it when he decided he didn’t.  He had no problem marrying a second woman, deciding against it, and marrying a third.  Nobody told him that this marriage didn’t count as much as anyone else’s. Nobody denied him the right to file joint taxes or visit hospital rooms (even if it was, as legend has it, to deliver divorce papers).  And yet having made his own decision about whom he should marry not once but three times, he seems to have no problem making this decision for—or more accurately denying it to—same-sex couples.  

While I don’t think we can judge candidates on whether or not they are adulterers, I do think we can judge them on whether or not they are hypocrites. And when a thrice- married man pledges to deny marriage benefits to anyone, I see nothing but hypocrisy.

Analysis Religion

Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Rejects While Obsessing About Birth Control

Juan Cole

Republicans denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits use "religious freedom" as their focal point, but completely ignore the church teachings they don’t agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both wear their faith on their sleeves, but are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

Cross-posted with permission from Informed Comment.

See all our coverage of the 2012 Contraceptive Mandate here.

The right wing Republican politicians who have been denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits as an attack on religious freedom completely ignore the church teachings they don’t agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

1. So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you’ll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

2.The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.

3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)

4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.

5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.” Santorum is a critic of welfare.

6. The US bishops say that “the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions…”. Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has now, predictably, turned against them.

7. Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians, so I guess he doesn’t agree with the bishops on that one.

8. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona’s law on treatment of immigrants, Cardinal Roger Mahony characterized Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law,” saying it is based on “totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources.” He even suggested that the law is a harbinger of an American Nazism! Santorum attacks ‘anchor babies’ or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.

9. The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.

10. The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of ‘preventive war’, and has come out against an attack on Iran in the absence of a real and present threat of an Iranian assault on the US. In contrast, Santorum wants to play Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove and ride the rocket down on Isfahan himself.

The conflict is between Federal authorities and the US Catholic bishops over rules requiring employees of Catholic institutions such as universities and hospitals to have birth control pills supplied to them as part of their health insurance. Because of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, the contemporary Roman Catholic church has taken the stand that artificial birth control is immoral. The bishops therefore object to having the church be forced to supply it as part of their employees’ health care packages.

The problem is that birth control is legal in the United States, and birth control pills are used for other purposes than contraception (in fact, contraception may not even be the purpose of the majority of prescriptions). Contrary to what Santorum alleges, the prescriptions are relatively expensive for poor and working class families.

Religious practices in the United States are trumped by secular law all the time when there is a conflict. Thus, Native Americans who believe in using peyote as part of their religious rituals were fired from their government jobs for doing so, and the US Supreme Court upheld it in 1990.

Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can’t get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats. If a brick fell on the turban and killed the Sikh worker, his family could after all sue the construction company for negligence since it did not require him to wear a hard hat.

Or there are many instances in which Muslim religious laws and practices have been over-ruled in the United States by the courts. American law forbids Muslim-American men to take a second wife, something legal to them in many of their home countries. State law tends to award community property in cases of divorce instead of the much smaller payments men can make to divorced women in Islamic law, even if the couple have specified in their marriage contract that Muslim law (sharia) will govern these issues.

I don’t think there is any question that Federal law, and state law, can trump Roman Catholic religious sentiments, just as they trump the religious sentiments and practices of other religious communities where issues of secular justice and equity are at stake.

The tradition of American progressive thought is tolerant of religion even while usually not being religious itself. In my view this attitude of tolerance is rooted in James Madison’s theory of democracy, which is that it is best preserved by lively arguments among groups in the body politic that disagree with one another. Thus, while the Roman Catholic church authorities adopted a negative stance toward modernity, cultural pluralism, and democracy in the nineteenth century, the Catholic community in the United States nevertheless contributed in important ways to modernity, cultural pluralism and democracy. Arguably, had the US been entirely Protestant, its law and practice would have evolved in a less pluralistic and tolerant direction.

A flourishing Catholic community contributed to social debates and so improved American democracy– witness Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. And, the reformist theologians of the twentieth century, most of them European or Latin American, cultivated by American Catholics, made important contributions to our understanding– Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kueng, Paulo Freire, and Gustavo Gutierrez. I would argue that Vatican II was an important event in American religious life across the board, not just for American Catholics. It is lack of appreciation of Madisonian conceptions of democracy of pluralism and checks and balances that led the late Christopher Hitchens to disregard altogether the enormous positive contribution of the Church, whether to the education of the poor and working classes or to teaching social justice. (By the way, the argument for democracy depending on diverse voices and vigorous debate is also an argument for the benefits for the US of the advent of Islam in American public life).

So, the arguments the bishops are making about the balance between conscience and the obligations of civil law should be welcomed by all Americans as part of our national dialectic.

President Obama is to be applauded for at least trying to find a compromise that doesn’t dragoon Catholic institutions into betraying that conscience. In the end, of course, civil law must uphold equitable treatment of all women, and a satisfactory compromise may not be possible. We will be the better for having the debate, and attempting to find a modus vivendi.

What isn’t helpful is to have loud-mouthed hypocrites who reject all the humane principles for which the Catholic Church stands getting on a high horse about a third-order teaching such as artificial birth control (on which the position of the church has changed over time, and may change again).

News Politics

Newt Gingrich: “Pro-Life Fraud”?

Robin Marty

Gingrich's lead in Iowa is likely to whittle away because of some surprising foes -- anti-choice activists.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s quick rise to the front of the other GOP presidential candidates has hit a major speed bump.  His new enemy?

Anti-choice activists in Iowa.

Calling Gingrich a “pro-life fraud,” fliers claiming to be from the group “Iowans for Life” are popping up all over the state, using a quote from Gingrich calling America a “pro-choice country.”

But is that really who is behind the attack?  According to Sarah Posner, no. 

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

As to why someone might try to impersonate her group, [Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for Life] said, “I have no idea,” adding that her group tends to be less political than the other major pro-life group in the state, Iowa Right to Life, and focuses more on educating grassroots activists. “It’s interesting, because we’re not really seen as the political group.”

It turns out that the flyer actually states it is paid for by “the Iowans for Life,” a mystery group that has yet to be tracked down.  However, the charges sound very much like the same ones being used in a robo-call by Iowa Pro-Life Action, who is behind the push for a “personhood” amendment in the state.

Apparently, Gingrich’s pledge to sign a personhood amendment hasn’t convinced them he’s truly on their side.