I have no brief for Sanford one way or the other, but I don't believe that his emails should be made public. An affair is only an affair of state in a gossipocracy; and I, for one, don't want to live in a gossipocracy. There's no reason to condone the bad behavior of the press simply because it is legal. Decent people don't go around looking for excuses to read other people's mail.

it's a Graham Greene novel Sanford's guy's in. Married, believing Christian mid-level politician with four kids falls passionately in love with South American divorcee, succombs to temptation, tortures himself with guilt as he knows this is an impossible situation, jets off to a foreign country to end the affair, spends several days weeping in Buenos Aires, manages to completely destroy everything he's worked for in his life, including the affair that started it all, is left with nothing.

Also, what hexis said. His personal love letters really are none of our business.

The first line should read "this Sanford guy" not "Sanford's guy." Sorry. Haven't had my coffee today.

So long as he leaves a contact number and cares for his sons, the rest of us don’t really care what he, or any other politician does in their marriage or lack thereof.

And his emails should remain private.

Normally, someone's marriage is no one else's business. But Mark Sanford made it my business when he decided that it was okay for him to get married and violate the rules of the Bible by committing adultery, but it's not okay for me to even have a go at marriage, because mine would not match his Biblical definition of marriage.

When you hold up your marriage, in the general sense, as the only type of good, authentic marriage, and you cite the Bible as your reason for banning gay marriage, then you open your marriage, and your adherence to the teachings of the Bible (however you chose to interpret them), up to scrutiny.

Actually, nobody should throw stones. Throwing stones is a terrible thing to do.

Unless of course, you are trapped in a glass house and the air is running out and there is a stone right there in the room.

Then maybe throwing a stone is a good idea....

"But wouldn't it be awesome if someone takes the lead in finally saying that, so long as he leaves a contact number and cares for his sons, the rest of us don't really care what he or any other politician does in their marriage or lack thereof?"

I will say it as often and as cheerfully as you please the moment the man and the party he belongs to stop trying to legislate morality.

Until that time, his personal behavior is perforce political since he makes the rest of ours so.

Along with his whore. What's fair is fair.

Mark Sanford's "stone-throwing" ipso-facto forfeits his right to live beyond my care.

I do believe in the sanctity of private failure, and the fact that these e-mails are out there - that I've read them, that they're published, that we're discussing them - does make my eyes bleed a little, BUT...

Public moralists who fail to meet their own standards of private morality have to be held accountable, because their own behavior proves that they are philosophically dead wrong.

So much legislation championed by these people seems driven explicitly by private shame, and that's a colossal public travesty.

Closeted gays who oppose gay rights are the best example, but "family values" politicians who fall down on the family job are just as bad.

They say to the public "everyone should look and act like (x), and if you can't, then dammit you should suffer while you're trying really really hard...like me!"

We encode this shameful struggle into our LAWS because of these people.

We leave no room for people to transcend shame and struggle and live freely.

And if we do not hold the perpetrators of this solipsistic sickness accountable - if we do not point at them and say "no, we can and should NOT all look and act the way you think we should" - then how can we hammer home the message that forcing people into tiny boxes is anti-American, not to mention doomed to failure?

If Mark Sanford were willing to leave MY private choices alone, he could expect the same courtesy from me.

But since he's not, it would be totally wrong to turn a blind eye to his public example.

We can't afford to leave Mark Sanford in peace until he & his are willing to do the same.

His emails are public because any email written on a government-sponsored computer and email account is a public document.

What I find spectacular is how recklessly he does not only destroy his wife's and sons' lives but also his mistress's - is it really love if you allow the name, personal details and personal communications of your supposed loved one to be opened to public scrutiny and derision in such a stupid way?

He wants to have it all ways - married with children and a lover, spectacular public career and secret private life, Christian preacher and sinner, moral guardian and fallible human in one person, all the time claiming the high ground for himself while condemning others. I do hope he walks away with nothing.

Yesterday the news media (including MSNBC) were talking about how he was a "man" and owned up to his failure, but the man is a liar and a hypocrite. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever, yet he seems to be able to keep his job and gain sympathy. Even his florid love e-mails are treated with sympathy and compassion that he has never exhibited to anyone else in a similar position. I don't feel sympathy hearing about his letters, just disgust at the melodrama of a pompous, bigoted Christian zealot who thinks the rules don't really apply to him and if he apologizes and confesses (after getting caught), he'll be forgiven. No amount of contrition can wipe away the stain his hypocrisy.

Maybe he can stand before the "traditional" confederate flag flying in front of the SC state capitol for his next plea for "tolerance" and forgiveness. Bastard.