Newt privacy and your business, but hypocrisy is the responsibility of all

Newt is right. Methods should not be shooting any of our business.

Now if only he - and his party - believes that the way to the rest of us.

In the last week of coverage of adultery Newt Gingrich - the idea of ​​trying to share the open marriage, however, by two women - reveals that the debate about marriage in a whole new light.

New logo: marriage between a man and a woman ... At the same time.

Seriously, who knew the senior Republican presidency will be "monogamish" - sex writer Dan Savage model to allow and even encourage some of them in the relationship between them.

Wild argues, counterintuitively, that is monogamish can be a way to save your marriage. This theory is all that is connected by a life partner, so you should be more tolerant of the "reality of the will of others."

I think Gingrich was seen mainly as a way to save the political skin. I was there to cover the conference as a reporter in late 1990, when Gingrich was seeking the impeachment of President Clinton. The point of anger in our policy, when a type of sexual McCarthyism control.

I wrote an article at the time about how the Republicans have developed a "new sexual purity test and leadership."

"Gender and political power in networks," was the title. Republicans in the House of Representatives, said that to me, and it is surprising that controlling their own sexuality has become fair game. Otherwise, how can anyone be sure that when it comes to family values, who practice what they preach?

Imagine Gingrich, the leader of this group. You are defective. I love, but marriage is necessary, and also - at least to save face. You do not have to be a man of a million ideas like Newt to think: Why not try to keep both?

Personally, I'm OK with that. Wrote the brutal, which is monogamish himself, said last week that the error was Gingrich back. He proposed marriage is open to adventure, rather than years later, his wife, probably not going to be very annoying (and may not be working on it now).

This is the message that is the real problem. But this does not happen, but more aggressive.

The Washington Post last week, and Gingrich was having an affair apparently asked his wife in an open marriage, even when it goes around the country the rest of us a lecture on religious and family values. This has gone from the Gingrich Congress, and then the other.

Is there any way out of this mess?

Last week, a prominent local politicians in the way. The representative of the Glenn Anderson, a Republican House of Representatives of the state of the city's fall, the crucial point that is usually missing in the debate about marriage. You have to be front and center, but probably not take place on Monday, when the Legislative Council hearings on whether to allow homosexuals to marry.

Anderson said there are two types of marriage, with the dates of the various institutions.

The civil marriage - a marriage license from the government - is "to provide a neutral basis, secular and social system for the orderly transfer of property rights for the common good," said Anderson. That's it. It has nothing to do with God. Love is not necessarily so.

The religious marriage, but between you and your wife and your church. It has nothing to do with the state. It is a state with him.

"Sex and the civil marriage does not affect the right of individuals to freedom of association with religious organizations that seek to promote the traditional values ​​of marriage," wrote Anderson. "It also hinders the ability to exercise the religious values ​​of marriage."

There is a perfect explanation of the reason for this is that any public affairs if someone like Gingrich wants to open marriage, monogamish. A major concern about whether Gingrich Dan and brutality.

Gingrich, the church now, and certainly not see it that way. However, you can give thanks to God who is not a candidate for the priest and the national.