A few months back, Newt Gingrich and his wife got what many would consider a pleasant surprise: glitter!

The couple were in Minneapolis for a signing of their book “Rediscovering God in America” when a gay marriage activist broke out a box of Cheez-Its and threw a pile of silver glitter confetti over Newt and his wife Callista.

The activist, who screamed out, “Feel the rainbow, Newt!”, was rushed out of the room by event security. In the video below, the man can be heard yelling, “Stop the hate! Stop the anti-gay politics!” as he is dragged away from the baffled politico couple.

The “glitter bombing” has become a tool in the arsenal of L.G.B.T activists looking to get their agenda for equal rights implemented. But while the sparkly methodology may seem a creative non-violent protest, the humor of it all is lost on Newt.

In an email to The New York Times, the former Speaker of the House said:

“Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such…When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”

What do you think of Newt’s reaction to being “glitter bombed”? Is he overreacting or does he have a point? Tell us what you think Clutchettes and gents- weigh in!

Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • JC

    If you think about it, he does have a point. If a random person jumps in your face, shouts some words, and reach for something in their bag, until you see what’s in their bag, you would be worried. They could be shouting “I love you”, if its sufficiently unexpected, it could scare you. Everyone has had a moment when their heart rate went up because a stranger did something unexpected.

    That feeling is tripled if your face is in the media.

    If you don’t believe, try it on a stranger and watch their reaction.

  • CMartel2

    This is clearly assault. Legally speaking, assault is defined in the common law as an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

    I would certainly call the contact offensive. And harmful. There is clearly the intent to harm here, either by 1) causing Gingrich to have to take time out of his event because some immature jerk decided to throw crap all over him, 2) to attempt to tarnish his reputation, and 3) potentially physically harm him should some of this get in his eye.

    It’s quite clear that Gingrich would have opposed this contact. You have a right to walk through life without having immature children throwing stuff at you. This “glitter head” opened himself up to both legal and civil charges.