Two affairs come out in two weeks. Shame on them for cheating on their spouses. Their careers are toast for the most part.
If there are any politicians reading this and you are having an affair, maybe you ought to end it so you won't damage your career and the public's trust.
I know people make mistakes but if you are married, there is a responsibility to your spouse and family to not cheat.
I wonder if this news will trump Jon and Kate?
Sorry, I meant to put this in the Politics section.
JenV
Member Profile
The sanctity of his vows were threatened by same-sex marriage... :P
HMC Rich...the word that immediately comes to mind is..."hypocrits" - they talk family values, but don't live them. They are adults, and they have choices, as we all do; it's what life is about. Do they really think they won't get caught? Oh, please.
c@lbob
Member Profile
Around the time of the Presidential address to Congress, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford were stoking the media fire about 2012 Presidential candidates for the GOP.
They represent the cream of the Republican crop? I think the grand old party had better start bio-engineering some better seeds.
i don't think infidelity is political...
unless you are making a political cause out of the sanctity of marriage...
I actually know Mark and Jenny Sanford. I worked on Mark's first campaign for US Congress in the 1st District of South Carolina (long before he ran for governor). And I still get a Christmas card from the Sanfords every year.
The breadth of my experience working in politics in my early 20's left me pretty jaded about the process. But to date I can honestly say that Mark Sanford was one of the few politicians who gave me hope that politicians with integrity could exist. For that reason, today's revelation is all the more shocking and disappointing. But it is ridiculous to suggest that marital infidelity has anything to do with political parties.
Elected officials, like the citizens they govern, are flawed. They make mistakes and have human weaknesses. This situation is a huge personal tragedy for his family. And on top of the tremendous public service the Sanfords have given the citizens of the State of South Carolina for the better part of 15 years, now they have to endure dealing with a very private situation in a very public way.
I really hope Mark can hang on to his governor's seat. He made a horrible mistake but he is a good man and a positive force for change in South Carolina.
From the December 2008 Christmas card:
power corrupts
absolute power corrupts absolutely
It's the hypocrisy that I can't stand. The "religious right", the dominant force in the Republican party, has infused politics with arguments about morality & claims to take the higher ground. As if they speak for God.
OK, so maybe Sanford isn't part of the religious right, but he's moralistic and judgmental. I like libertarian leaning politicians, but Republicans of this persuasion are often very controlling on social issues (& cave to the religious right).
He likely used taxpayer dollars to fly to Argentina, but without a doubt a lot of resources were used to search for the missing governor over the past week. And he wanted Clinton to resign during the whole Lewinsky thing b/c the president lied to the public and broke its trust. And now he does the exact same thing. THAT'S why this is now everyone's business, and part of the political discussion.
The Republican party is imploding.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-affair/
and his voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm
Mark Sanford is about the farthest thing from a right-wing Republican that I can think of. In fact, when he was running for Congress he got criticized constantly by the religious right in SC who claimed he was a Democrat in disguise.
Clinton got up there on national television and lied. And he was prepared to continue lying and to write off Monica Lewinsky as an unstable, loose cannon until a bit of preserved DNA on a certain GAP dress forced his hand. Mark Sanford just got up there today and took responsibility for what had been going on.
I doubt public funds were used for his recent trip to Buenos Aires, though I expect Sanford's political enemies in SC may look into it. Mark and his wife are independently wealthy so he's got more than enough of his own money to fund such things.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jenny Sanford so I'm not trying to minimize what he has done. But in the 15 years he has held public office he has definitely been one of the good guys...fighting to turn around an often backward and corrupt Red State with a lot of entrenched interests.
Whether or not people hate right wing Republicans or feel the Republican party is "imploding" doesn't really have a whole lot to do with Mark Sanford in my mind any more than the long list of Kennedy family sexual indiscretions (and the list is long) has to do with diminishing all of the public service that family has devoted to our country.
Mark Sanford was the potential Republican presidential candidate for the next election. So yeah, the party is imploding. Who do they have left? Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter?
His voting record on social issues is far from either the democratic or libertarian stance: he's anti-abortion, believes marriage is only for a man-woman pair (obviously he is a beacon for the sanctity of marriage), bans gay adoptions, wanted to prohibit needle exchange programs, against medical marijuana, and is fine with the 10 commandments being displayed in a classroom (& teacher-led prayer).
And he wanted 2 prominent politicians impeached for lying to the public about marital infidelity.
So maybe I would agree with him on economic issues (and some others), but its that whole moralistic thing that I can't stand. Politicians from the left and right have cheated on their spouses, but those on the right tend to be publicly & loudly vocal in judgment and criticism of those same "sins" they commit in private. That is the definition of a hypocrite.
But to be fair, Edwards was the democratic counterpart to your guy. Equally disappointing.
Just because pundits speculated that Sanford would be a 2012 Presidential candidate doesn't mean he necessarily had any interest in the job. We're talking about a man who self-imposed three terms in Congress because he didn't believe in people moving to Washington to become career politicians. Not the most ambitious politician in the world.
Sanford didn't even rent an apartment in Washington during his entire tenure, preferring instead to camp out in his Rayburn office as a means of staying outside of the establishment and affirming that South Carolina was his home not Washington DC.
Though I don't agree with Mark Sanford's voting record on social issues he answers to the people of South Carolina for cripes sakes. And just because I don't agree with what most of the people of South Carolina want doesn't mean that I'm right and they're wrong and that they don't have a right to vote for whatever they believe in. We are, after all, a vast country of 300 million people. Folks are gonna disagree.
Politics and government are obviously complicated. Things aren't always black and white. Is a CEO a villain for laying off 5,000 people? Or is she a hero for saving a factory that employs tens of thousands more? Is Sanford evil because his voting record doesn't demonstrate an enlightened view regarding gay rights and a woman's right to choose? Or is he a force for good for turning around a corrupt state which as recently as 1986 had the FBI raid its legislature and bust a majority of legislators for corruption and influence peddling?
Sanford's most recent controversy was in refusing to automatically jump on the gravy train and accept $700 million in bailout money from the US Treasury (funded no doubt with Chinese debt that our great-grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying off with their livelihoods). Most politicians wouldn't even question it. Sanford did only to lose and fortify his political enemies.
And now this. The press loves it because it is salacious and it will sell news. Sanford's enemies love it because he is a change agent and that is threatening to them. People who hate Republicans love it because they can attach a label to Mark Sanford as a further badge of how wrong Republicans are.
This is the state of politics in our country. And we wonder why so few of the best and brightest seek public office. We deserve what we get.
If you publicly state that you believe the oath made to a wife is one of the most important..
that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman..
and you cavalierly take off for a week's vacation to Argentina with your mistress...
you can expect to be pilloried by the press...
even when you take touching family photos.
I think Sanford was the one who made this "news" when he held a press conference to confess.
For myself, I feel the same way about him as John Edwards or anyone else. None of our business, it's between him and his wife. And his wife has already stated she knows about the relationship and wasn't concerned about his absence.
If Sanford has pushed some form of legislation criminalizing affairs, then it's our business because he would have politicized the issue.
If I was SC resident, my only concern would be his lack of informing the lieutenant governor of his whereabouts and how to get a hold of him for official business. A lot can happen in 5 days. You can't just disappear when you are responsible for a state.
WesCAddle
Member Profile
According to FOX news, Sanford is a Democrat. In fact, often times when a Republican messes up FOX likes to "accidentally" label them as Democrats.
http://www.theproverbialtundra.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/foxnews1.jpg
bluebird..
Sanford held a news conference because his absence was already news.. his version of a GAP dress.
He did push some kind of legislation criminalizing marriage between anyone but a man and a woman because it devalued marriage.
Does an affair devalue marriage?
Does it have more or less value if your wife is aware of your mistress?
Does serial monogamy makes philandering ok? ..
oops.. contradiction in terms:(
if philandering is a serious enough issue for the taxpayers to pay big bucks on special prosecutors when the politician is a democrat.. then it is probably just as serious when they are a republican.
you might say it was about the fib...not about the sex.. but if not for the special prosecutor spending his time looking into Clinton's possible sexual dalliances ... there would have been no lie.
Personally, i think the republicans would have been a lot smarter if they hadn't looked under that particular rock...
and even smarter if they hadn't been so self righteous when they called for blood.
and even smarter if they had looked to their dogs for unconditional love...
as it is.. not so smart...
“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]
guess what he meant was a 'marriage was something between a man and a woman... and a woman'.
this is the kind of cr@p that the left is tired of from the right. The moralistic high ground that you THINK you stand on.
Stop dictating marriage to people - can you at least stop arguing that same sex marriage ruins a heteros' marriage when you have people like this flying internationally just to have some booty, in spite of his wife and children.
First. I wonder if she was HOT!!
Second, Many Republicans and Democrats do walk the walk when they preach morality. If you don't like it you don't have to feel guilty about your turning away from your own sins or indiscretions. It is your life. Why do you let it bother you? Does this mean you have less or lower standards? Personal Responsibility is one of the harder standards to achieve. I have certainly failed quite often. I learn from those mistakes too. Funny how we can usually remember more bad things than good.
Everyone has their version of morality. People preach all the time whether it be from the "Religious Right" or say Enviro Nazis. I don't know anyone from either group but I am certain many Democrats believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy just like plenty of Rightees believe in some left wing political conspiracy machine.
WTF does same sex marriage have to do with this? Now if Maria turns out to be a guy, then maybe you can draw a parallel.
Since it was brought up I will broach the subject. I do not mean to offend. Someday same sex marriage might be legal. I find it interesting that many people on the left want federal power for many things but are using individual states to try and legalize same sex marriage. How about we abolish Roe v Wade and let the individual states decide that issue? Nevermind, we have argued that one already. There is plenty more to chat about.
Before condemning all Christianity please try to remember that Marriage for Love is a by product of the Judeo Christian ethic. Marriage for love is a relatively new part of marriage equation. Marriage has had many forms but mostly to have children.
I am not saying I am against same sex marriage but I am also not ready to endorse it. I know people regardless of sexual orientation feel love. I am not gay so there may be certain areas I cannot fathom but we are all human and there are feelings, wants and desires that we feel. We can all make choices. I could as a straight man decide to go out with Gay men but I would not be true to myself. Gay men could decide to go out with straight women but that would not be true to their desires. The choice can be made that is all.
Please, do not misunderstand me when I say this next statement. Being hetero is the general norm of society. Being Gay is not. Being Gay is not wrong either in my opinion but it is not the norm sexually speaking. Both sides are human. It is part of the human experience. Why this is I do not know. From my point of view, In essence, same sex marriage would be a special right for people who want a "normal" institution granted to them. My gay friends do not talk about this. I tend to be less political around them for fear of hurting their feelings. For anyone it is an interesting question and one that will take a long time in deciding.
Back to Sanford and Sons, People should have high standards but they are not always achieved. Ensign and Sanford fell flat on their faces. Many of the statements they made were before their affairs and they truly believed them. Then the fell prey to their humanity. Anyway, they made a mistake and are now stepping up and facing the music. They know that their political enemies will make hay with this. I know I will when another politician screws up in the future. They can be considered hypocrites for now. They have dishonored their families and constituents. They should leave public office and get their lives in order. It will happen again unfortunately.
Now as far as standard bearers for the Republican Party... Palin and Jindahl could be standard bearers in 2012. The party is reorganizing and now some of the possible contenders have become chaff. Others will pop up. Don't rule out Palin or Jindahl. Two bad television appearances and they are branded losers (mostly by the left wing media and pundits)? Bill Clinton had a horrible speech in '88 and recovered quite well I think. Ask David Lettermen about mistakes. Sarah Palin is going to haunt you!!!!!! You attack her because you are afraid of her. I guess only the left can have strong independent women? How judgemental. Jindahl actually was correct when he argued that certain spending earmarked for stimulus did not make sense. Earthquake monitoring equipment makes sense but not as a stimulus.
I would like to hear from the opposing side what is wrong with Jindahl. I have heard plenty about Palin but at least her state is solvent unlike this one.
Bottom line, I will call out any Republican who is not behaving. I need my party to clean up their act. I follow the party of Lincoln. I follow the classic liberals of which our founders were many. Funny how the left stole the term "classic liberal". I hope my left leaning friends will call b.s. when their politicians aren't behaving either.
WSMom
Member Profile
I keep wondering if "she" is really a "he".
Trick
Member Profile
I believe he sat on the "Foreign affairs" committee.
*drum roll and cymbal*
JenV
Member Profile
HMC Rich: "WTF does same sex marriage have to do with this?"
It has to do with the religious right GOP hypocrites denying rights to same sex couples, touting the "sanctity of marriage" as a reason - while all these assholes run around on their wives, have gay sex in airport restrooms, molest their congressional pages, etc.
capiche?
People are unfaithful and against gay marriage regardless of politcal party.
LOL... you two (WSMom and Trick) make me giggle...
HMC Rich...
what does same sex marriage have to do with this?
Well... if you are going to treat marriage as primarily a religious sacrament and use it's sacredness as a justification for denying legal rights to those who don't fit your religious ideal of marriage... it would seem that marriage should mean more to you. and if it doesn't, you should be called on your hypocrisy.
Do politicians who profess faith get a by on personal responsibility because it is assumed that they are trying while those "outside the faith" even if they are members of a christian church.. are held to higher standards of morality?
because that is what this whole man/woman only marriage thing is about.. morality.
if a couple commit to one another and mingle their finances and make their life decisions together and possibly adopt children together... they should be entitled to the full protection of our law for committed partners. That protection is called marriage.
When you hold marriage up to some higher ideal and use that ideal to deny other people basic human rights.. such as the right to be with their loved ones when they are hospitalized... then you should be expected to live up to that ideal.
WTF does it matter if she (or he) in Argentina was hot?
My guess is that is not the question your wife would ask before the frying pan descended on your head should you ever be so foolish...
I am confused about marriage for love being a byproduct of christianity since marriage for love didn't really appear except as an aberration (and thus a romantic fantasy) on our social horizons until the last century. Until romantic marketing got hold of it.. marriage was more about building and controlling family resources (wealth) than about love...
The arrangement of dowrys and the question of which family group or tribe could lay claim to the resources of the newly married couple were the primary legal issues in marriage.
And they are still the primary legal issues when it comes to the subject of same sex marriage.
Loving one's chosen marriage partner may have been part of the christian ethic.. but my guess is that you would have a hard time making the case that love in marriage is a christian concept since there are love sonnets to husbands and wives in ancient literature that predate Christianity.
and if love is the central sacrament of marriage and you concede that same sex partners might love one another.. then from a christian perspective... wouldn't it be better to have that love sanctified in a christian home rather than vilified as unnatural?
As for heterosexual love being the norm for society.. it think you would have to specify that heterosexual love is the norm where theology has become either societal norm or actual codified law. Prior to the militant spread of the Christian and Muslim religions, heterosexual love was not the only accepted societal norm... just the only one in which children could be conceived. Thanks to modern medicine.. that is no longer true.
As a Christian, i resent the narrow interpretations and myths perpetrated by those who use my religion for political gain... whether from the pulpit or governing bodies.
You talk about choice.. if i had to make a choice about Christianity based on the religion as it has been portrayed by those on the religious right... i would have to disavow Christianity.
Thank God i don't.
As for the rising stars of the Republican right... i will wait to see how they pull themselves out of the hogwallow they have been bathing in.
I would find a new claim for Palin though. Even a democrat could balance their state budget in a state with that much oil revenue and such low expectations... After all.. outside of major urban areas.. most of Alaska still thinks septic systems are a step up ;)
**** edit added*****
Before i get jumped.. i am referring to the lack of infrastructure provided by the state government in Alaska.. not to the backwardness of the people of Alaska.
Most of my homesteading friends there have embraced green technology... (and yes.. there is green technology even when it comes to pit toilets) ...
which makes sense when you are living where you have no choice but to rely on your own resources... something most of us would be unable to do here even if we were willing to do the work living on our own resources entails...
comparing the budgets of Alaska and Washington... with the added economic resources and lowered expectation for services in Alaska... and attributing the fiscal health of Alaska to a less than one term governor just doesn't make sense.
JenV
Member Profile
WSRats: this is true - not saying Dems don't do stupid crap like that - hell, Bill Clinton practically wrote the book. But it's the religious right GOP who specifically and most vociferously are against same-sex rights, hiding behind their religious beliefs...but apparently their god thinks it's perfectly fine to violate their marriage vows.
JenV...
though the democratic party platform is not against same sex marriage.. it is not exactly for it either...
and the latest "first step" towards equalization giving gay federal foreign service employees stationed outside the United States the right to compassionate leave and access to medical transport for their same sex partners is a far cry from granting those same partners medical benefits... or legal spousal rights...
both i believe within the personal jurisdiction of our sitting president.
as is a supposedly active policy of don't ask don't tell a far cry from granting every member of our military sexual discretion... whether their partners are military or civilian... as long as their choice of partners doesn't violate chain of command.
Not to mention granting same sex partners of military personnel the same legal rights granted heterosexual partners...
We ignore the fact that many of those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country had no legal right to even claim the body of their partners...
I agree.. that not making legal discrimination a tenant of their political platform does make democrats one step less politically discriminating than republicans...
but i am still far from proud of our party's stand on this issue.
Have none of you read the actual emails? The affair was with a woman. His emails make that explicitly clear.
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html
In my mind, the hypocrisy comes not from having the affair, but rather from failing to prevent himself from starting the affair in the first place. In my opinion, a true Christian -- committed to his marriage, and to an honorable relationship with his wife and his family -- would have realized his attraction to this woman was troublesome, and would have distanced himself long before it got to the "falling in love" phase. That's the "forsaking all others" part of traditional Christian marriage vows.
Sure, he is human and we all have our failings. But for someone who so loudly professed his Christian faith, shouldn't he have had more of a conscience? I think that is what people find so difficult to understand.
You don't all of a sudden wake up one morning deeply in love with another person. Relationships develop over time... time during which a person ought to have self-awareness and conscious control over their actions and decisions.
hopey..
i confess. i didn't even read the emails when you linked to them.. and i probably won't...
I agree that it is troubling that a professed Christian.. who based much of his policy making on his religious (moral) views... would honor the financial and legal aspects of his marriage contract while ignoring the sanctity of that union.
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile
I guess I am kind of with BlueBird on this one. This affair has nothing to do with his politics and should be kept this way. I hope everyone that is scolding him this loudly was the same with Bill Clinton as well considering he lied about his affair under oath.
Also thanks for the link Hopey. it is unfortunate that people try to make up stories like it was an affair with a man. His family is probably already going through enough without false rumors complicating matters.
WSMom
Member Profile
hopey - very well said and I couldn't agree with you more!
And, yes I did read the emails, I just wouldn't be surprised, given he went all the way across the world to find love, that Maria might turn out to be Mario (seems to often be the case with professed family values kind of guys!)
beachdrivegirl, when a politician makes morality a political issue or chooses to associate with a party that does, and then has an affair, the affair is absolutely a political issue.
Didn't marriage begin as a transfer of property in Ancient Greece - a culture with a rather large acceptance of homosexuality? So what if "the (christian) church" adopted the concept? They adopted a lot of things that were not theirs to begin with, ironically some from Pagan relgions...
You can't believe everything you read in the bible - which IMHO was written by a bunch of old men looking to keep themselves in power. Or do the concepts of "The husband is to rule over his wife" or "A man who refuses to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law is put to death" or "A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt" still apply because it was written oh so long ago?
And if I hear of one more politician being against "gay adoption" I will scream. There they sit with their large biological families - while condemning those who fight for the right to take in and love other people's unwanted children. Nice.
But yes...hypocrisy on other people's "rights" aside, infidelity is a personal family matter and should not legally affect public service (how voters feel is up to them of course) - republican or democrat.
Rainyday1235..
i suppose i should thank you. if i can't sleep tonight i will have a starting place for a whole night's reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
and it's all your fault. you whetted my curiosity and sent me to begin reading the wiki entry on marriage. There is enough on that page alone to keep me interested.. but the links.. especially to source material.
we are indeed a strange race of creatures with some really strange customs.
including the middle aged crazy lust for youth that seems to have affected so many of our politicians..
JenV, Thank You for posting your opinion. I know there are many Christians who are absolutely judgemental about same sex marriage etc. I do not believe that their savior would agree with them. I also know that when votes come up 70% or so (give or take 10 percent) vote gay marriage initiatives down. Many of those voters are not hard core Christians. This is bigger than the Religious Right that so many people demonize.
You know I might actually support same sex marriage. I did not strictly deny it. I also want to make some other points which might actually strengthen your argument.
KBear, your post was spot on. He can be called a hypocrite but so can cheating politicians from each side of the aisle. Craig may have played footsy in a bathroom and Foley may have sent innapropriate messages to young pages. They were wrong but actually did not get caught having sexual relations. Maybe if either case had been able to go further that would be the case. I have and always will be disturbed by the Kennedys and their blatant disregard for women. I will never, ever understand why Edward Kennedy ever got away with the Chappaquidic (sic) incident. I will never understand why John was such a predator and of course Mr. Clinton's mistake(s). All these behaviors damage the family first and all of them should have been called on it. It is not excusable. There is a sanctity of marriage and life. Fortunately, we are a forgiving society and we do forgive if we think people are sincere.
But First. JoB, I think I know my wife a little, not much, but a little more than you. My "Hot" statement was a joke and she knows it. She can hit me with a pan or mink whips for other things but not that bad joke. Besides, I wonder if it was her (Maria's) accent? Sultry foreign voice and hot (otherwise, why bother!) Sexism lives!!!! Not all males have been castrated by the women's movement. Actually I support the woman's movement, especially when I am walking behind them. OK, for that last paragraph every HR department in the US would fire me. I'm just kidding around. Some won't see it that way. Can't PC everyone.
Love was not necessarily a part of marriage in ancient Greece. Plato proposed abolishing marriage. Aristotle thought it good for family structure but did not believe life devoted to family and children was not a noble one. Please find romantic love in a greek tragedy. The Greek pantheon had plenty of lust and vengeance but not much Love either. Eros was a huge part of homosexuality in Greece partly in Athens but especially in Sparta. Christianity was not around and as it formed it embraced the family unit and does not usually include homosexuality among other sexual practices. More on this later.
JoB you brought up dowery's. I give you 5 goats, 3 yaks and a gaggle of geese for your child. Boy, that is romantic, NOT! but it was a norm wasn't it.
Christianity made the family unit the central and best way for personal fulfillment from the union of a man and a woman resulting in children. In Europe romantic love for the common man and woman to the aristocracy developed in the Middle Ages which was much different from arranged marriages. Also Christianity introduced consent as a part of the process of marriage. Marriage without coercion is now a Christian value.
Since our general morals in America come from the tenets of Christianity, the institution of marriage is predominately a holy union between a man and a woman who love each other. Now, because of no fault divorce, many marriages are a farce. I am not saying there should not be divorce but it might be too easy these days to get one. I also know people change.
But, Love between two people is the determining factor for a union. Marriage these days is based usually on two individuals in Love and consenting to live together as a family until they die. This "Love" aspect from our Christian roots actually can help favor the same sex marriage argument. Conversely, Marriage of same sex people for procreation does not work so well but through outside procedures it can happen. There is one of the dilemmas for a heterosexual.
I might even be willing to support Same Sex Marriage if Roe v Wade was overturned. I suspect even some other Christians might feel the same way. Others will not. How does the LGBT family feel about that?
I have a gay relative. I wish for him the same happiness that I wish for everyone else. Nothing is completely black and white. What I am against now I might be for later or vice versa. Bludgeoning anyone with a point of view usually turns people off. But, standing up for your beliefs is a noble endeavor. There are many quandry's and sometimes we change our minds. Sometimes we make good decisions and other times we make bad decisions. It is called accountability. If you talk the talk you had better walk the walk. Sanford used to but he fell prey to lust or something else. He showed some dignity in coming clean but I would not want to be him right now.
Wow. I'll bet Mark Sanford wishes we waited 24 hours to announce his infidelity. His news would have probably barely made page 12 of the Times.
Marriage for Love is a by product of the Judeo Christian ethic
I tried to stay out of this pie fight because I really really don't care what anyone does with their genitals, with consenting adults, on their own time.
The issue is hypocrisy. No getting around it.
But what drives me nuts is the abysmal ignorance by Christians of the contents of their own freakin book.
Women and children were considered property throughout the period of time chronicled in the bible. The only thing that changed between the period of the bible and the 18th century christian institution of marriage, was some areas shifted from bride price to dowry depending on the ratio of men to women and slight shifts in inheritance laws.
Even today, the language of most christian marriage ceremonies make clear the subservient nature of the female.
State and federal law are the only way any equality was injected into the process and only in the 20th century.
Husbands could have there wives committed to an insane asylum on their own unsupported word in this city in the memory of people living today.
Judeo Christian ethics my a$$.
I despised Sanford the hypocrite long before this episode and nothing he is doing now is likely to change that.
My opinion of Republicans in general keeps sinking with every attempt to pretend they aren't just using christians as political tools of convenience.
"Husbands could have there wives committed to an insane asylum on their own unsupported word in this city in the memory of people living today."
painfully true.. and you don't have to be THAT old to remember it happening to someone you love... here or elsewhere.
in the case i am most familiar with, the sexual deviant had his wife committed because she objected to his desire to add bondage.. etc.. to their personal relations.. and tried again when she caught him molesting one of her kids and objected to that...
but hey.. he was the man.
i know it is difficult for young women to understand why some of us are militant about women's rights... but the stories you think are too awful to be true because they could never happen... they happened.
And all sanctioned from the pulpits of many local churches...
this woman went to their pastor for help. The pastor "helped" her get immediate institutionalized counseling.
And still Ken, I am a christian.
There is much good in that book even tho some of the stories used to justify homophobia, child abuse, sexual discrimination, bigotry, etc... are antiquated and distorted by those who would use it for their own purposes.
Even tho Christianity and the Bible itself have been modified to support power structures that were anything but Christian in nature...
Christianity is not the problem...
People who profess Christianity and wield it as a weapon without embracing christian behavior or Christian ideals are the problem.
Lindsey
Member Profile
cjboffoli - So true!
Clearly the progressive, eugenics, slavery crowd has better ethics or so you preach. Whatever.
Wait, I got peeved. Let me clarify. You want the government to be your master (regarding the slavery comment).
I have said all along that Mr. Sanford's affair was stupid and wrong. Yes, you can call it hypocrisy. Hell, I started the thread hammering him.
Women were property for a long time. It is through thoughtful activism, education and morality that these issues have changed. There is morality whether people want to believe it or not.
Why some people cannot encompass some of the JC ethic is beyond my comprehension. We are a moral people. More so than many. Sometimes it takes a while for ideals to change.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel morality has been a driving force behind women's autonomy (self-governance)? If you equate morality with religion, it seems like a contradiction. From a simple observance point of view, the more religious a family, state, country, the less equality for women is apparent.
And isn't morality really subjective based on a given society's customs and norms? Or are you saying only American judeo-christians practice correct morality?
Definition of morality: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
"Women were property for a long time. It is through thoughtful activism, education and morality that these issues have changed."
or at least some would like to thinks so...
fact is that the Equal Right's Amendment giving women equal rights has yet to be ratified...
These are the states that have yet to ratify the Equal Right's Amendment...
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
It would only take three of these states to make equal rights law...
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Most of these states are in what is called the Bible belt... and most of them are what have been traditionally republican states.
it's not likely that either of those two observations are mere coincidences..
enlightenment apparently hasn't trickled down as far as legal rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/jenny-sanford-how-i-found_n_221785.html
Lots of bible quoting in his apology, and a looming investigation about using state dollars to fund a prior trip to Argentina.
from mom2soren's link..
"About an hour after Jenny Sanford talked of her pain and feelings of betrayal, her husband brushed aside any suggestion he might immediately resign, citing the Bible and the story of King David _ who continued to lead after sleeping with another man's wife, Bathsheba, having the husband slain, then marrying the widow.
"What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily _ fell in very, very significant ways, but then picked up the pieces and built from there," Sanford told members of his cabinet in a session called so he could apologize to them in person and tell them the business of government must continue."
Christianity is not the problem. Christians aren't the problem. People who use the bible to justify actions which are not part of a Christian life are the problem.
I don't know if he should resign or not.. that will be up to his state and his party. But it is clear that a man who weeks ago was one of the major contenders for a presidential candidate for the Republican party is not much of a leader.... in either words or deeds.
charlabob
Member Profile
You'll all be pleased to know that Rush has figured out how Sanford's folly is Obama's fault. How, you ask? Here you go ...
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/06/26/rush-limbaugh-its-obamas-fault-that-gov-sanford-cheated-on-wife/
I left the long link in case you just want to see the Cliff's Notes(tm) version :-)
Meanwhile, once again the American(sic) people refuse to address the real political/moral issues. Shocking but true: I don't give a rat's rear about Sanford's fidelity or lack thereof. I do mind that he was willing to sell out the poor folks of his state by refusing the stimulus money so he could enhance his possibility of getting the Rep* nomination for president.
I would really like to see a debate about what kind of country we want, based on ideas, rather than garbage. 72 percent of the people want a public option for health care. They understand that their health care is now regulated by uncaring *for profit* bureaucrats and, this time, aren't buying the venality of government bureaucrats. Our elected officials, bought and paid for by industry, do buy it. (Or were bought and paid for BY it.)
But we, left and right, drag red herrings across the path. Is Sanford a hypocrite or a bad Xtian -- or is he an elected official who does not make decisions based on what's best for his state? Let's ignore that and debate his personal life. Much less threatening to the corporatists who really rule this country.
As long as we're easily distracted, there will be no kind of change -- whether or not we believe.
Of course Christians in general aren't the problem. It's Christianity in politics.
mom2soren...
it's politics disguised as Christianity:(
charlabob...
it's really difficult to keep your eyes on the goal when there are so many red herrings thrown in the path... we can only try...
I have to admit that Sanford was never on my personal radar at all until he made a spectacle of himself... imagine that:))
CountingCoup
Member Profile
The end game, anyone who backs a man who went after Clinton about his extra marital affair and stated he should resign his elected seat and doesn't follow his own idiotic political rhetoric, is as hypocritical as Sanford is. Bottom Line..........
rockhills
Member Profile
When you go into politics, whatever your party, you know you will be placed under a microscope. I wonder whether it is a particular failing of politicians or if the percentage of cheating politicians is commensurate with the overall population? Either way, why is no-one asking how can all these people be so stupid as to make themselves politically vulnerable in that way?
CountingCoup
Member Profile
"why is no-one asking how can all these people be so stupid as to make themselves politically vulnerable in that way?"
My belief is because they are human, regardless of their rhetoric.
These things happen in life, and to condemn this behavior is as unrealistic as those who condone this could -or- would never occur in their own lives.
The "holier than thou" competitive game of pitting one person against our own moral judgement is a joke and leaves me very little room for empathy for those who fall on their own sword.
In the end we are just human...
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog
