Gingrich Cites His Sponsorship of Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 – Fails to Note He Was Cheating on His Wife at the Time

Left, Marianne with Newt; right, Callista, with whom he had an extramarital affair when he sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act
Left, Marianne with Newt; right, Callista, with whom Speaker Gingrich was having an extramarital affair when he sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act

If all it took to be president was chutzpah and cojones, Newt Gingrich would be president for life.

With his Mediterranean cruise and its fallout — the abrupt departure of his senior campaign staff — behind him, Gingrich finally showed up in Iowa over the weekend to campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

Iowa is one of a handful of states where gay marriage is legal, so naturally reporters asked the thrice-married Gingrich for his take on the legalization of marriage equality in New York Friday night. He replied:

GINGRICH: Iowa was a very different case from New York. I mean, Iowa was seven judges deciding that they would arbitrarily overturn the laws and the culture of the state of Iowa which is fundamentally different. I mean New York at least, whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, it is in the elected process and it is in the legislature and it is with the governor and that’s the right venue.

I helped sponsor the Defense of Marriage Act which basically doesn’t transfer automatically to all 50 states. I think the president should be, frankly, enforcing that act and I think we are drifting towards a terrible muddle which I think is going to be very, very difficult and painful to work our way out of.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that’s what marriage ought to be and I would like to find ways to defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible.

Most people know by now that, in the mid-1990s, then-Speaker Gingrich was cheating on his second wife, Marianne, with a staffer, his current wife Callista, at the same time he led the drive to impeach Pres. Clinton over a lie about his affair with a staffer, Monica Lewinsky.

It is not as widely known, however, that two years before the impeachment Speaker Gingrich was also cheating on Marianne with Callista when he led the passage of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

According to “Peepshow: Media and Politics in an Age of Scandal,” by Larry J. Sabato, Mark Stencel, S. Robert Lichter, which we also referenced here in January, the Newt-Callista affair began the year before Gingrich became DOMA’s champion:

The relationship with Callista Bisek only received widespread attention in the summer of 1999, seven months after Gingrich left office, when a supermarket tabloid [the Star] staked out the couple’s comings and goings in Washington and a Georgia judge ordered the Hill staffer deposed as part of the former speaker’s divorce proceedings. Rumors of the Gingrich-Bisek affair circulated before then. Bisek was identified in a 1995 profile of Gingrich as the speaker’s “favorite breakfast companion,” a reference that was repeated at the time in a London newspaper and by Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson. During the impeachment debate — the muckraking online magazine online magazine Salon mentioned “persistent (though unproven) rumors” about a Gingrich affair in a September 1998 article. A few months later, [Flynt] alluded vaguely to Bisek in the “Flynt Report,” his glossy report about congressional misdeeds, identifying her at the end of a two-page spread on the speaker as a former congressman’s aide.

The idea that Newt Gingrich “sponsored” DOMA because of high-minded ideals about the sanctity of marriage is obviously malarkey. DOMA was nothing more than a wedge issue, a political trick. It was intended to put Democrats in the awkward position of either voting against it and upsetting voters in middle America, who were a lot less gay-friendly back then, or voting for it and angering gay voters and their allies on the far left, thereby depressing turnout among the base.

DOMA passed in the House on July 12, 1996, and in the Senate on Sept. 10. Clinton quietly signed it into law on Sept. 21, and then he headed out of town, along with the rest of Washington, to campaign for reelection.

To be fair, Bill Clinton is also tarnished by this sorry episode. His affair with Monica Lewinsky started in November 1995 and ended in March 1997, which means he was also cheating on his wife during the period when he signed DOMA and made discrimination against his gay allies the law of the land.

As a political cudgel, DOMA failed. In November 1996, Clinton handily defeated former Sen. Majority Leader Bob Dole — and he did it with the help of gay Democrats, who held their noses and voted for the man who had just betrayed them.

Gingrich has said that his excessive patriotism drove him to have affairs, presumably including his affair with Marianne, which broke up his marriage to first wife, Jackie, around the time she had been diagnosed with cancer.

In reality, the Defense of Marriage Act does not defend anything. There is an assault on heterosexual marriage, but it is certainly not coming from gay people who want to marry — it is coming from adulterers, especially serial philanderers like Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani and the rest.


  • Anonymous Coward
    June 27, 2011 - 7:40 am | Permalink

    So let me get this straight: cheating on your wife is part of defending marriage, while wanting to get married is destroying it. Got it. Also, lies are truth, war is peace, slavery is freedom, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia….

  • lmwilker
    June 27, 2011 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    Newt Gingrich believes that Marriage should be between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman…..

  • Dan
    June 27, 2011 - 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Oh yes marriage is so sacred that he had to do it twice. I love these hypocrites.

  • June 27, 2011 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Cheating is considered by many men as entitlement under patriarchy, since strict monogamy was instituted for women in the beginning of “monotheistic” religion while men could have all the wives, concubines and women slaves they wanted. It is tragic that as women are starting to slowly achieve our long overdue equality status to men, that some like Callista (and Marianne) stoop to betrayal of their sisters. Do I expect more from women than men? Yes!! A woman who does not honor the innate connection between heart and pelvis with which women (and not men) are blessed betrays not only herself but all women and is guilty of retarding gender equality so necessary now to humanity’s evolution. DocJM

  • Jill Cee
    June 27, 2011 - 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Until folks choose to understand that marriage, as dictated by law, has more to do with property rights (see above comments concerning women and monogamy) and less to do with upholding the sanctity of a commitment, this stupid debate will continue. Which means it will continue. The men who have the power and the property, don’t want to give it up; and the women who have the men who have the power and the property, don’t want them to give it up.
    If you want to be married for reasons of commitment and love, then find a spiritual person who will marry you.

  • June 27, 2011 - 6:56 pm | Permalink

    DocJM, you sound like a sanctimonious female Newt Gingrich. Women by virtue of their gender are morally superior to men? Yeah right(lol).

  • CatBallou
    June 27, 2011 - 10:32 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got to agree with Rick. This “innate connection between heart and pelvis” is just BS whatever way you look at it, and it’s certainly not some mystic attribute that only women possess.
    However, comparing DocJM to Newt is way too harsh!

  • June 28, 2011 - 12:13 am | Permalink

    Nothing mystical or moral about it, it is physiological and emotional. When a woman breastfeeds her new baby, the uterus with excess blood contracts to push it all out, quite similar to contractions during uterine orgasms, as are contractions of labor until they get too painful to dominate other feelings. Yes, I do believe there is a special kind of loving inherent in women if they haven’t been successfully brainwashed by a patriarchal culture that makes every effort to separate woman’s body from her heart. Doc JM

    • June 28, 2011 - 6:07 am | Permalink

      Interesting — I would note, however, that nearly 100 percent of these men are acting on their impulses with women.

  • Pingback: Headline of the day: Shooting Newts in a barrel. . . | eats shoots 'n leaves

  • KP
    June 30, 2011 - 12:40 am | Permalink

    @DocJM: As a woman who fully believes in EQUALITY… you are 32 flavors of crazy. Women are not better than men, men are not better than women. I know it makes you feel better about yourself to put another group down, but let’s be objective here. We are HUMAN BEINGS and we are ALL stupid in our own little ways. You, for instance, are being insanely chauvinistic. And don’t go trying to correct me with that “male chauvinist” argument, because chauvinism is defined as militant, prejudiced (and most importantly, FALSE) belief in one’s own superiority, no matter WHAT the sex or gender.

  • Pingback: Gingrich Cites His Sponsorship of Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 – Fails to Note He Was Cheating on His Wife at the Time | DUMB MOVES NEWS

  • Pingback: Reflections On: Meeting Lord Browne, The Baron Browne of Madingley, and Sir Peter Westmacott | The Progressive Democrat

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *