Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich wanted an open marriage

Via ThinkProgress, more hypocrisy amongst the Republican candidates, this time by Newt Gingrich. How is it hypocrisy, you ask? Well, he believes marriage should be legislated and mandated by law to be one man, one woman.

But for his own marriage, he wanted one man, multiple women instead.

Of course, he wasn’t actually arguing for polyamory, just for the ability to cheat with impunity. And thank goodness, because I have a good deal of sympathy for the idea of polyamory — how consenting fully informed adults arrange their sex lives is nobody’s fucking concern but theirs, thankyouverymuch. I would hate for the movement for recognizing polyamory as a legitimate lifestyle to gain such a notable skeezoid as its new poster child.

ABC has apparently entered into a full-scale civil war over whether to air the interview with Marianne Gingrich immediately, or wait until AFTER the Repub primary in South Carolina. I guess they feel bad about scuttling Gingrich and damning the Republicans to Romney. Such a shame, where Gingrich was doing so well after his calling Obama a “food stamp president” in a not-at-all racist manner.

Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich wanted an open marriage

11 thoughts on “Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich wanted an open marriage

  1. 1

    As I said elsewhere, this is the kind of understanding you come to before getting into a committed relationship or marriage, not when you’re already in one and your partner is suffering from a life-changing illness.

  2. 5

    Hell. Yeah, I was in fact looking for that word. Why I didn’t find it this time around, though I’ve talked about polyamory in the past, I honestly don’t know. I suspect it may have come from reading too many comments on too many “zomg Gingrich is a hypocrite” posts.

  3. 7

    Word is that Newt didn’t propose an “open marriage” so much as he admitted a 6-year affair and told his wife to suck it up or leave. Newt doesn’t believe in polyamory, he believes in Newt’s right to do whatever Newt wants, however it might affect anyone else. Which makes him an arse, but we already knew that. What’s worse is that he supports the right of government to deny people the right to arrange their lives in a way that suits them, WITHOUT hurting others. Nothing new there either.

  4. 10

    Who doesn’t want an “open marriage”?? Having said that (wry humor intented), 50% divorce rate – what’s the avg. marriage? Six years? – and if TRUTH will out, over 75% infidelity rate (conservative est. – get it? conservative.), plus the sleazoid factor, what’s the biggie? I mean, who in politics – or REAL life – is not a fucking hypocrite?

    CNN AND John King needed that ass-kicking. WTF are they? The National Tattler?? Everyone who wanted to know about this ALLEGED situation, already knew or would in the next few days, so…?

    This is the same MSM a lot of us piss and moan about and condemn as lie-mongers, isn’t it?

  5. 11

    Poster Iamafreeman, I’d agree with you about politicians’ hypocisy, except that, in this case, as in the cases of oh-so-many conservative pols, the personal sleaze is in the EXACT area where he would legislate to deny others the right. Gingrich keeps saying he supports government enforcement of marriage as “between one man and one woman” and now we hear that he wanted his wife to accept a de facto plural marriage. This is why it’s relevant.

    Your remarks about marital infidelity are not relevant.

Comments are closed.