This Senatoris falling all over himself apologizing for having an affair while he was separated from his wife, with whom he later reconciled. .IMO relations that people pursue while separated are in a gray “working out the next step” zone, and aren’t really ethically comparable to having an affair while married in terms of breach of trust or breaking vows.
Do you agree or disagree?
I suspect that he (or perhaps, his wife) and others may hold the opinion that if you’re separated, you’re still legally and morally married, and thus shouldn’t be fooling around - rather, the separation should be used to think things over without the stress of living together, to seek counseling, etc.
Fortunately, I haven’t been in that position, but that would be my first assumption - I would probably figure that a separation isn’t a “we’re too lazy/cheap to get divorced” option, or a “I really want to boink that other person but am looking for a ‘get out of trouble free’ card option here” thing. However, I don’t have any strong feelings about how others handle the situation.
What makes an affair unethical is deception and emotional betrayal. I think if there is no deception, and no understanding or expectation of fidelity, then there is nothing unethical. I don’t think Senator Ensign has anything to apologize for on that score, and he should probably just tell everybody it’s his own personal business and they can fuck off.
The one aspect where the ethics of his situation become more murky is the fact that the staffer he was sleeping with was apparently married herself. Shagging people who are married (as in actively married, not separated) is ethically dangerous territory in my book. It’s still not very important, though, and it shouldn’t be something he has to resign over.
How has he been on preaching “family values,” and Bible banging issues? Is he a hypocrite? I really don’t know much about this guy.
You can’t blame people too much for the things that they do when they can’t be expected to be thinking straight. But at the same time, once in their right mind again, they should be feeling remorse. If they aren’t then it seems an awful lot like they’re using the separation as an excuse to do something they consciously wanted to do.
Ultimately I’d say that it comes down to the individual actors and what they were thinking.
While I have seen a few separations that result in the marriage reconciling, it seems to me that in the large majority of cases separation is just the first step on the road to divorce.
I always sided with Ross Geller on this.
If you’re married, you’re married. You want to sleep with someone else, get a divorce. Separated is still married.
Rule of thumb as a single woman: If he’s separated, he’s still married.
Maybe i’m missing something, but your link does not say that Ensign was separated from his wife when this affair occurred. Nor does this Washington Post article, or this New York Times article.
According to the Post article i linked above:
And from the Times article:
Must be one of those “Do as i say, not as i do” type of evangelical ministries.
The WaPo article also says he called on Clinton to resign during blowjob-gate, so yeah, it looks like he’s a huge hypocrite. You’re also right that these articles don’t say he was separated, so that changes my answer about whether it was ethical.
The article is now twice as long, contains lots more personal data re the black mailer and has removed the statement that he was separated vs the original shorter one I originally linked to. The statement re separation was there when I linked. It was the entire point of this thread.
tries to think of one that isn’t
Not that easy. In some states a period of separation is required by law before a couple can legally divorce.
I think it depends on the understanding between the couple. Surely most separating couples would have a discussion about this at some point–even if “discussion” just means “hurling accusations that the other person wants to sleep around”. If someone says “of course I’ll stay faithful”, then they are still as ethically bound as they ever were. If they say “I don’t know, I’m really confused” or “No, I want to try being single again to see if it’s what I want”, then they aren’t.
Seriously. I only learned this myself a year or two ago. The State still does regulate your marriage in some places.
If by “ethically akin” you mean “as morally objectionable,” it would depend on whether or not your moral code considered it as objectionable. If you are a follower of Jesus (and most of the Christians I’m aware of are not really “followers of Jesus”), then yes. Jesus said (as documented in the Holy Bible, KJV):
*Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. *Matthew 19:8-9
*Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. *Mark 10:11-12
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18
Further, Jesus also said: That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28
So, considering the facts that he was indeed still married to his wife, and that he probably lusted after the paramour prior to the actual act of adultery, and that the fact that unless he divorced his wife for HER sexual indiscretion, even if he married the paramour, he would have committed adultery, then yes.
IF you believe what Jesus Christ said. Just food for thought.
I agree with this. Are the two situations exactly equivalent? No, but either way, you’re still married.
I think it depends on the situation of the individual couple. As far as Ensign’s apology goes, it’s worth pointing out that he’s a potential presidential candidate and for that reason he has a motivation to get this out there and smoothed over as early as possible.
This is the key, i think. The measure of ethical behavior in this situation is whatever the couple themselves agreed on before the separation.
If they both viewed the purpose of their separation as a first step to working things out and getting back together, then it was wrong of him to sleep with another woman. If they both viewed it as the first step on the road to inevitable divorce, then he can sleep with as many women as he wants. And if they left the whole thing unspoken, and with no clear understanding of what the separation was about, then he probably should have been more considerate, but probably also has a reasonable excuse. As Dio said, they key here is whether there was deception and betrayal of one party by the other.
Of course, as in the whole “Ross and Rachel” situation, it’s possible that both parties had a different understanding of what a separation actually meant for their relationship. These things can get messy sometimes, and it’s entirely possible for two parties, each in good faith, to come to very different conclusions about what they signify.
At least one of the news stories that i’ve read suggested that this confession was, in fact, a clear marker of his intention to make a run.