Source: Knoxville News
The local paper won’t back down either on this. This is the same senator who is the subject of a federal grand jury probe, and pushed through a marriage “defense” bill in the state legislature.
But marriage “defense” bills only protect marriage from those eeeeevil gays. The heteros can destroy the institution all they want, apparently.
Well, I won’t defend this guy’s behavior.
I’d like to note, though, that one of the most prominent “family values” politicians in this country appears to be faithful not only to his wife, but also to Catholic doctrine on reproductive issues, as evidenced by their numerous children.
Yet probably no politician is as hated on this board as Rick Santorum is.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be. It’s just that the hatred he draws isn’t due to his family life, which by all accounts is pretty blameless. It is because of the positions he holds.
Same with this guy, I guess. He’s catching flak from the Usual Suspects here because he is a “family values” politician. Otherwise, his personal life wouldn’t be anyone’s business - or at least that would be the explanation were he pro-choice and his last name, say, Clinton.
Making the personal political, and vice-versa, is dangerous stuff. I supported the impeachment of Clinton, because the evidence showed that he had committed crimes by impeding an investigation. However, that caused damage to both parties, and our country isn’t better off for the whole sorry mess.
No, he’s catching flak from “the usual suspects” (I always aspired to be an unusual suspect…ah well) in this particular instance because he’s a hypocrite and because he’s threatening a free press. It is in fact news when a public figure gets a divorce. When that public figure impugns the morality of others through claims that their marriages would be so destructive to society that they must be barred by law, then he throws his own morality open to questioning. It is perfectly legitimate for a news story to report that someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral (I’m assuming on biblical grounds; please correct me if I’m wrong) is violating one of the top ten tenets of his own religious faith.
In addition I am personally directing a little flak his way because of his mangling of English syntax. “Myself and many others” he writes? I hope his former English teachers get together and beat his ass.
Why drag Clinton into this? You opinion of him or his situation is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
This guy is fair game–if you set yourself up as righteous and moral and are found not to be so–that’s hypocrisy and deserves some airing. No doubt he has rationalized away his behavior in some way to himself, his mistress, his wife (good luck with that) and for all I know, his constituents. BUT.
Fact is, he is acting immorally by his own publicly professed standards and should be called on it.
Or does “family values” change it’s meaning when the GOP uses it?
I was wondering–exactly what can he do to the business people who continue to purchase advertising in the paper, especially in light of his legal problems? Also, what is it with these politicians who get caught with their pants down; don’t they pay attention to what happens to other crooked politicians? Do they really think they’re that special?
Gez, I’m a great big pinko and I’m not sure I get these arguments. I don’t see where he set himself up to be moral. Sponsoring a bill does not require one to be an exemplar of the values that bill expresses, necessarily. Politicians should do what they think is best for their constituents, regardles of their own shorcomings.
That said, I think this is a perfectly valid news story. The comparison to Clinton was valid; I think this story should get no more media attention than the Clinton scandals did. We can start by calling him “a congenital liar,” and then assert that we are experts on the English language despite our apparent ignorance of the definition of the word “congenital.”
Santorum shows up in Pit thread titles 12 times. The search engine chokes on pit titles containing Bush.
I can certainly sympathize with the search engine. His name has that effect on me, too.
Oh come on. You really think that the people who sponsor bills to outlaw same-sex marriage are motivated by the best interests of their constituents? Please.
A politician or anyone else who advocates against equal marriage most certainly is setting themself up as more moral than gays or lesbians, as a heterosexual.
Wherefore, take the two-faced schmuck down.
A politician or anyone else who advocates against equal marriage most certainly is setting themself up as more moral than gays or lesbians, as a heterosexual.
And Miller, by having a wife and a girlfriend, is showing he’s twice as moral as a monogamous heterosexual.
I agree. But politicians who for whatever reason pass laws criminalizing private behavior by consenting adults have *themselves * made the personal political. If such politicians think that a person’s private behavior is not only other people’s business, but in fact is the *government’s * business, I think they have forfeited the right to call their own private behavior off-limits.
I’m with Duckster. I am strongly opposed to adultery, putting it right up there with theft, etc. in terms of things which are clearly, unambiguously wrong according to Christian teachings. When one commits adultery, one chooses to deliberately break one’s vows, and it’s worse, in my mind, if those vows are sworn before God. (I am aware that not everyone vows to stay married “as long as you both shall live”, that people get married courthouses with no mention of God, and I do not consider people in open marriages to be committing adultery, to insert the usual caveats.)
I have no problem with homosexuality because being homosexual isn’t a choice; the Biblical prohibitions against it are far more ambiguous; and merely having sex with someone isn’t breaking a vow nor is falling in love with or being attracted to someone.
I’ve lived a pretty moral life, by these people’s standards. I’m a devout Christian who goes to church most Sundays. I’ve never married, never have kids, and I’ve had fewer lovers in my life than Larry King has had wives. Nevertheless, I’ve been accused of leading people to hell because of my support of homosexuality by a woman who’s been married three times. :rolleyes:
Yes, I think it shows a lot of cheek for a politician to say he supports “family values” while having an affair. If divorce isn’t destructive to marriage, I don’t know what is. I’m still befuddled by the fact that states in the Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate, yet I hear folks from that neck of the woods decrying the lack of morality in this country. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. While I was digging up a cite for divorce rates by state, I came across this little snippet:
[quote]
[ul][li]25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime. [/li][li]**Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics. ** [/ul][/li][/quote]
(Bolding in original.)
Remind me to use that link next time I hear someone saying Atheists and Agnostics are more inherently immoral than Christians.
Oh, Mr. Moto, concerning Mr. Santorum, I think you know why I dislike him, but I’ll repeat it for the sake of the board. Since I moved back to town a couple years after he was first elected, he has almost always supported policies which I do not. It’s only “almost always” because he recently came out in favor of a bill which would shut down puppy mills. While I don’t know the man in real life, he comes across of having no empathy for anyone who isn’t white, male, straight, and upper middle class, and he decries others feeding at the government trough while doing so himself. I put the business of his claiming to be a Pennsylvania resident so his kids could attend charter schools paid for by the state when, in fact, he doesn’t live at the addresss he used in the same class of petty hypocrisy as the politician who spouts “family values” while having an affair or getting married two or three times. I’ve got a strong liberal streak; I’m not his natural constituency. On the other hand, my parents, who are much more conservative, are, and they don’t support him any more, either.
CJ
I don’t understand: How? I have no evidence that this individual thinks he is anything other than a fellow sinner. If he does, he is wrong, since that label applies to everyone.
The fact that he is wrong about gay marriage does not mean he must be a venal hypocrite who is secretly visiting black prostitutes paid for by Halliburton and Big Pharma.
Thank you Otto, I could not have said it better myself.
“Myself and many others…” <snort snort>
However:
Because when you try to make public policy out of a moral crusade, your own morals become public policy too.
If our marriages are in the public arena for others to judge their fitness, his is too.
Although I agree with you politically, matt_mcl, I think saoirse is correct about this. A politician’s job, by its very nature, is to represent the views of constituents, not his or her own agenda (though of course they often overlap, or some politicians fail to see the distinction). If this man is from a conservative area, and his constituents are asking for marriage to be legislated, well… he must represent that. It’s his own lookout whether he can do so in good conscience, though.