if there's anything more laughable and repulsive than newt gingrich positioning himself as the moral arbiter of the US, i can't think of it. the idea that a serial adulterer and all-around opportunistic, double-dealing hypocrite speaking as an authority on god or the bible or what other people do in their private lives is almost indigestible.
that never stopped any of these bible-thumping, flag-waving GOP demagogues from strutting out in front of the TV cameras to make a mockery of everything the constitution stipulates about the rule of law and the proper role of the government in the lives of individuals. today, gingrich is in a lather because obama finally showed a little backbone, and acknowledged that the so-called "defense of marriage" act is a constitutional violation of the rights of gay people to marry whom they will.
Critics Slam Obama DOMA Decision, Newt Gingrich Calls It 'Rule of Obama' - ABC News: "'The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama,' said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 'The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional.'"
that a legislative majority has had its way in enacting an unconstitutional law in no way legitimizes the law or what it purports to do. there is nothing in the constitution that mandates special classes of people when it comes to enactment or enforcement of civil laws. what the born-agains and their various moralizing, bigoted, pissant twits are trying to do is superimpose their religious doctrine on a legal arrangement that -- if it can be offered to anyone -- should be available to everyone.
that obama doesn't want the DOJ to waste a lot of time defending a law that's going down eventually is only a small glimmer of hope that we'll begin as a nation to repudiate those loudmouths on the right wing who think what other people do in private is their business.
since gingrich is so obsessed with oaths, we can only wonder how he could hold obama to such a lofty standard, when he himself showed no such commitment to his marriage vows.
i'm really wondering whether these republican roosters really believe what they preach. just last week they were puffing their chests and roaring about how their tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund government programs they find morally objectionable. they were talking about abortion specifically, and birth control in general if you pin them down.
i find i agree with them about not having my tax dollars dedicated to programs i find morally offensive. among others, i'd start with the endless, unnecessary wars of empire the US government dedicates over half its discretionary spending towards -- approaching $1 trillion a year when wars, weapons, spies, veterans programs and all the trimmings are added in. these things, i believe, you will find objects of reproach in the new testament gospels and the teachings of jesus of nazareth.
and if we enlarge the definition of moral repugnance to not be dependent on any religious doctrine or teaching, then i think we can also say that the bailouts of greedy, irresponsible bankers who defrauded millions of people -- and are even now draining the treasury as politicians scurry to cover their egregious larcenies -- are detestable and unconscionable. can i please opt out on that one, too?
so much for the laws, so much for the constitution. it's all a rotten scam that's being run against the rest of us by rotten, amoral degenerates.