Wednesday, June 24, 2009

For Socially Conservative Gov. Sanford, Marriage Consists of a Man, a Woman, and a Woman on the Side

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is a traditional, socially conservative, family-values kind of guy. He opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions for gays and lesbians. He also voted to ban adoptions in the District of Columbia by gays and lesbians and any other individuals who are unrelated by blood or marriage. Sanford's own life, however, has been a lot more nuanced.

Although Sanford rejects the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and gay adoption, I suspect he will not voluntarily hand over his own marriage license despite jetting to Argentina in order to engage in a notorious international affair and after hiding from his wife and four children for nearly a week.

Yet again, "Family Values" = "Do as I say, not as I do."

See also:

Major Update in Missing Governor Case: Sanford Says He Was in Argentina -- Not Hiking on Appalachian Trail

New Twist in South Carolina Governor Drama: Sources Claim Feds Found Sanford Boarding a Plane in Atlanta -- Not Hiking in the Appalachian Trail

Did South Carolina Governor Disappear for Nude Hiking Trip?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just because a proponent of a cause doesn't live up to the ideals of the cause doesn't mean that the cause is not just. ...Though this what you are saying. To follow your logic, since the significant number of gays don't give a damn about family life,'free love stuff,' the cause of gay equality is bogus.

Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

I was so hoping this was going to be something exciting... like he went to Argentina to study their Social security program.

Same old same. Repressed RWers, poking their appendages into bedrooms where they shouldn't be...

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Anonymous: I didn't criticize family values. I criticized family values hypocrisy. If you do not view the two as distinct concepts, then that's telling of something, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: This is a grievous time for us on the Right, as another fraud gives you cover to blast family values. Yes, you did. You wrote:

"Family Values" = "Do as I say, not as I do."

not

"Family Values Hypocrisy" = "Do as I say, not as I do." = "An honorable creed disgraced by a fraud."

As you say, if you do not view the two as distinct concepts, then that's telling of something, I suppose.

Well, you have us. Unlike the odious James McGreevey case in New Jersey, the press will bawl about this for months. A glimpse at Memoreandum as of 2130 Pacific Time today, shows Sanford the dominant topic by far, easily outshining such trivialities as the blowup in Iran, the still sinking economy, the Prez's frenzies as he tries to get national voodoo health care, where you'll be able to get keep the health insurance you have unless you can't because the govt shreds the private health insurance market the way Medicare has shredded the over-65 health care market. You still haven't named one private health insurer that will sell anyone older than 65 a policy beyond "Medigap." Before you trot out the bunkum about Medicare Advantage, read what The Prez said at his press conference yesterday:

"If we're spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there's no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that's not a good deal for taxpayers."

Full transcript here

That branch you are out on, waving The Prez's flag, is being sawn away. Don't worry, there are plenty of others who have been treated the same way.

Meanwhile let us have ten seconds of sympathy for Mark Sanford who got caught in conflicting human desires, never minding the values he hollered for so loudly, then get on to the next business at hand: at the back of this blog, I am taking collections to get Mark the insurance coverage he needs more than any other: Purple Cross

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Greg, stop butchering my post. I said, "Yet again....." This means that I am emphasizing incidents where people have taken hard line stances on social issues, only to defy their moral code in their own personal lives. Apparently doing so hits a sore spot.

Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

Time to get the government out of our bedrooms... and our churches.

And vice-versa.

Let's defend the constitution and leave it alone.

Sanford, and his kind, have more pressing issues to attend to.

Dr. Hutchinson is one of the fairest bloggers around. That is why I read and comment here so often.

If anonymous posters can't handle this kind of honesty.... perhaps that explains why they are "anaonymous." Just sayin'.

liberal dissent said...

I've got to admit, I feel a little bad for Sanford. Most politicians' adultery apology speeches are formulaic and unconvincing, but he really put himself out there.

And I firmly believe conservatism is a cultural indicator, not a moral one. What's important to the conservative mindset is not that you follow the ideals, it's just that you profess them.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Liberal Dissent said: "What's important to the conservative mindset is not that you follow the ideals, it's just that you profess them."

Interesting notion....I suspect it applies to many liberals as well.

I only felt sorry for Sanford when the emails surfaced. They are very personal, and who really wants their flirting broadcast to the nation? His wife's statement is also very moving and interesting.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Hey, Stray: Thanks! I could definitely criticize family values, but interestingly, some posters are upset that I am uncovering the hypocrisy that plagues many of its proponents.

Infidel753 said...

When somebody who preaches a particular moral value system, and condemns others for deviating from it (as Sanford condemned Clinton back in the day), and, in fact, builds a political career and identity partly on being holier-than-thou on the subject -- and then is caught egregiously betraying that value system -- then it's perfectly appropriate to call him on the carpet for hypocrisy. (In fact, it's perfectly appropriate to point fingers and guffaw, but that's more my style than Prof. Hutchinson's.)

And yes, it is worse when one of these preachy family-values types does it than when someone like Bill Clinton does it. Bill Clinton didn't build his career and political identity on preaching sexual morality at people.

No amount of rhetorical dodging and weaving can change that.

And it's not like this is an isolated case. David Vitter, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley.....There does seem to be a correlation between smug moral superiority and hypocrisy. Rather than ragging on people who point this out, the right might want to ruminate on just why it's so.

Page W.H. Brousseau IV said...

I don't think you can pull out a few examples of hypocrisy to say issues, unrelated to that particular event, are not well based. Nor do I think liberal ideas are less well based because when they get caught doing something like this they are not labled a hypocrite. That's my 2 cents.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Page: I never contested family values - only the hypocrisy of many of its proponents. I am still stunned that readers continue to conflate a critique of hypocrisy with a critique of family values. Are family values inherently hypocritical?

Liberals are usually not in people's bedrooms not trying to enforce a narrow moral code based on hatred of fornication, adultery and homosexuality.

Real Time Analytics