Let’s Be “Newtly” Open

by Tatiana von Tauber

Would you find your spouse immoral if s/he asked you for an open marriage? If you’re like the general population, probably so and that’s because monogamy in marriage is so entrenched in our Judeo-Christian culture as the best way that it’s very difficult to pull out of such a norm; however, I believe Newt Gingrich showed a higher level of moral character than his current judgment dictates with respect to his second ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich’s disclosure he asked her for an open marriage.

In politics as in marriage a lot of things happen in the background that aren’t always in plain view. Mixing the desires of more than one individual requires compromises otherwise you’re left with lies for solutions. Just look at history for evidence.

By Newt Gingrich asking his second wife – now the ex – for an open marriage he actually proved his moral character via his ability to simply be honest about his feelings and desires and ask in spite of the backlash from what would traditionally be considered immoral (from their camp anyway).

This honesty is honorable. While the request may or may not be, there cannot be confusion between the difference of the request and the honesty which manifested it.

I suppose Marianne Gingrich would have preferred her ex husband to exhibit typical politician behavior and pin a little twinkie behind closed doors, then lie about it to his wife only for her to discover later he was a sperm donor too. Poleeze.

Some people prefer truth and others like the illusion. For me, a president who likes truth based on the situation at hand is a better choice than the cowardly liar – though at press time he’s denying the open marriage allegation but then that just shows you lies are the skin of politics.  Strip the skin and kill the beast.

12 Responses to Let’s Be “Newtly” Open

  1. My first thought when I heard her bitching that he’d asked for the marriage to open up was “bet you wish you had said yes, because you’d probably still be married to him, ya shrew”.

    Doing this 2 days before SC’s primary? One of the bitchiest things she could have done. I hope he doesn’t still pay her alimony…

  2. By this time Gingrich was already cheating on her. So he wasn’t being “honest” or “showing character”. And even if he was “honest” in this one case – you are ignoring the fact that Gingrich lies about everything – in front of the camera or not. About his jobs, his life, even his character.

    And “Judeo-Christian” is a completely made up term to push the so called victimization of evangelicals in this country. You do yourself no favors in using it.

    (By your comments I can only take you are a Rush Limbaugh listener since he stated the exact same thing yesterday. Do you have any independent thoughts on the subject or do you just parrot whatever he says?)

    • Scott Jacobs says:

      I would be moved, had she not done this:

      Documents related to the divorce filed Friday in Cobb County Superior Court include a separation agreement signed by the couple and notarized in December 1987. There is no indication it was ever filed.

      Gingrich’s divorce attorney, Thomas Browning, said Marianne Gingrich called her husband on his birthday in June 1987 to tell him she was leaving him. Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out.

      Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years before reconciling in late 1993 or early 1994.

      • MikeZ says:

        Personally I don’t think that changes much. Now I’m socially very liberal and actually have no problems with open marriages or for that matter consensual polygamy (I know several 3somes who have been happy for years).

        However I think to judge her actions you have to put yourself in her frame of mind a bit. Your a socially conservative who think anything outside the bonds of one woman one man marriage is a bit of an bomination and you married a leading conservative politican who preaches these views and went so far as to lead an impeachment charge against another government official who strayed. So in that case a some revenge would seem appropriate.

        Heck I’m sure given the choice of having his house cleaned out and his then wife holding a press conference outing their private issues, Don’t you think Gingrich would prefer what actually happend?

  3. MikeZ says:

    I would completely agree he was showing higher moral character with his wife by that statement. However at the time wasn’t he also leading the impeachment charge vs Clinton? So I can see why she may be thinking he was just being a hypocritical lying douchebag and trying to get out of paying a large alimony settlement.

    • Clint says:

      He also wasn’t honest about being honest. If he was so honest, why didn’t he tell the country he had asked his wife for an open marriage? Why did we have to hear it from her, a decade+ later?

      Typical apologism for wrongdoings – seems to be the new theme of this once-great, now shark-jumped blog.

      • Scott Jacobs says:

        He didn’t tell us because it was none of our fecking business.

        You actually base your vote on who told us about their sex lives?

        • MikeZ says:

          Funny I don’t think I ever heard Newt council his fellow representatives “Lets drop this whole Lewinsky thing, that problem is strictly a private matter between Bill, Hillary and Monica”. Show me a Newt quote showing that sentiment (prior to his resigning because the impeachment thing didn’t work out so well) and I’ll consider your point valid.

          Personally I agree what goes on in my personal life is private. New however doesn’t think so, further his actions don’t match his words so that makes it our business.

  4. Leo M. Mulvihill, Jr. says:

    What happens in another’s home is generally none of my damn business.

    But when a person crusades to legislate away personal choices in citizens’ lives based on his “morals” (which stem from a two-thousand-plus year-old storybook), then personally works to persecute those who don’t conform to those “morals”, and all the while acts in direct opposition to those “morals” – that is a man of neither character nor morality.

    Newt put himself out there back when he attacked Clinton for the same philandering behavior. He opened the door to character, so we’re allowed through it too.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  5. TvT says:

    First, “gingerjet”. I’ve never seen an episode of Rush Limbaugh nor do I watch Fox News – ever. I’m a registered independent and I’ve voted democrat every election since I was 18, including Ross Perot – twice. I’m a hard core pro-choice advocator and I will never support a republican but I do support and advocate and like to point out examples of honesty when I notice them, even if they’re not fucking perfect because in humanity one must know how to give and take. My independent thoughts develop over here in Germany near a US military base but far from the chaotic American reality while proudly supporting my family’s efforts to support the very troops that make sure your ass is free to judge mine. Parrot that.

    Moving forward…

    Revenge can always seem appropriate when vindictiveness is at the forefront, which is exactly what Marianne’s intent appeared to be considering the timing. Revenge is always ugly and yet, conservative as she may be, she doesn’t trust enough in God to “punish” Newt for his immorality. She chose to do it. What hypocrisy to one’s own faith. It’s such an entertaining disappointment.

    And yes, true Gingrich isn’t exactly an executor of consistent morality but quite frankly, give me an example of someone who is without making me laugh. We all lie or have lied at some point in time to someone for some reason so let’s not be righteous where we’re not. This is exactly the conservative minded illusion of idealism that’s creating larger divide in our nation. It’s a self perpetuated lie amplified by political pep rallies. If you really want to make a huge impact, create a don’t vote movement and watch how Congress takes a lesson in morality.

    The only point in my post was to illustrate that if he did suggest this open marriage, and yes, probably he was already cheating already which I didn’t actually initally consider – but even if he was cheaing, he still took a chance at honesty that isn’t allowed in the conservative camp without a little flame under the ass. I find that specific part of it honorable.

    I don’t know. Maybe he wanted to get rid of Marianne and thought that would seal the deal. Thing is, look at how the media jumped on the open marriage part, the immoral part. This is inappropriate judgment on a candidate when we all know, 100%, lies just by default of what politics is.

    This one circumstance though, it’s juicer because actual affairs are old news. We want fresh and what’s more controversial and fresh and emotionally impacting than what is quickly becoming a popularized fad, open marriage onto a conservative camp? I find this very humorous and sad at the same time but I haven’t stopped laughing.

    The sliver of positivity here is that at Newt’s core, he’s got a liberal slice, even if full of narcissism’s wake. I think uncovering THAT is better than what you are all concentrating on.

    Does this clear up my wording?

  6. jdgalt says:

    Any married person asking his/her spouse for an open marriage is *not* cheating. He/she has not breached his marriage vow, but rather is *asking* that it be changed — a renegotiation attempt which is exactly the honorable way to try to get out of any contract you have made and now regret.

    That is exactly the opposite of “cheating”. It is also none of the public’s business.

    And to me, this non-issue resonates exactly like the non-issue of President Obama’s missing birth certificate four years ago: in both cases, those who raise it are telling us a lot more about themselves than about the candidate. There are plenty of good reasons not to support Newt Gingrich, just as there were plenty of good reasons not to support Obama — but this is not one of them. It’s petty, shallow, and irrelevant, and so are the people who shout about it.

    • Scott Jacobs says:

      Let’s make sure this point is clear – Years before Newt asked Marianne this question (or put forth the ultimatum, depending on how he worded it), she had called him – on his birthday – saying she wanted a divorce, and had the home cleared out by the time he got back.

      At that moment, she lost all claim to him, in my eyes. He started seeing someone else, and this other woman was apparently happy to leave things as they were – being the “other woman”/the person Newt cared about, while allowing the marriage to remain “for appearances”.

      From my vantage point, it just looks like Marianne is a) pissed she got called on her bullshit b) pissed Newt seems to be able of moving on past a time in his life where he was shackled to a God Damn Shrew.

%d bloggers like this: