I think that we all are aware that many religious fundamentalists, of a wide variety of denominations, identify divorce and adultery as shameful, sinful conduct that should be condemned and, ideally, legislated against.

I think that many among us would even recognize, albeit in many cases perhaps grudgingly, that there is a rational basis for making a distinction between homosexuality and adultery in this debate. The argument, as I see it, is that legalization of adultery is a departure from or offense against marriage as traditionally conceived between a man and a woman, while legalization of gay marriage is an attempt, not just to make it easier to sin, but to redefine the very meaning of marriage itself. This may seem like a "koan" to some, but to me it is an understandable and legitimate, albeit ultimately sadly and profoundly wrong position.

Whether one can understand that position, though, is beside the point of the article. It seems to me that Glenn's point is very simple and persuasive.

Whatever one thinks about the current debate, it seems to me to be beyond debate that anyone who led the sort of marital lives that these men have led would have been considered to be entirely unfit for elected office not so very long ago. If they had decided to run anyway, and did so on a platform that included "defense of traditional marriage," it would have been an occasion for universal ridicule and contempt.

I think that the reality behind the public's role in allowing this sort of thing to pass without comment is a little more complicated than Glenn makes it out to be, ie., that Joe and Jane voter enjoy condemning homosexuality but do not want to stop going to the key parties on the weekends. At the level of professional politics, though, I am right with him in finding this aspect of contemporary politics to be revolting.

What is most noticeable to me, moreover, is the persistent ability of Republicans to spin this the other way. On the way to reading this, I was listening to Christian talk radio (I'm perverse that way). The people being interviewed there were arguing that there is a "double standard" against Republicans in these matters, and that it is the Democrats that are the "hypocrites" for failing to condemn people in their own party with sexual failings. Ie. Bill Clinton. This failure to admit the difference between taking a revoltingly inconsistent position and taking an _alternative_ position with respect to sexuality. This is not excusable as stupidity. It is stunning, intentional sophistry. And they need to be called on it, again and again and again, until people begin to see what pathetic liars they all are.

I understand where you are coming from and far be it for me to defend Vitter but the question was whether Vitter ever admitted breaking a law and he did not do so.

Craig, when he pled guilty, admitted breaking a law and thus that one is a no-brainer. Vitter, on the other hand, admitted breaking only "God's law" (he sinned) and he wasn't even specific in that regard.

The problem, as I see it, is that some folks confuse what is God's and what is Ceasar's.

Holy Matrimony is God's and marriage is Ceasar's .... and the Religious Right wants it both ways.

Really interesting debate guys, I've enjoyed reading it and have learned a lot along the way.

It would appear that American political hypocrisy is not that much different to Australian really, heheh.

The "pro-life" faction of the abortion controversy analyzes to the belief system of a plant fertility cult, in which the seed is fetishized and the adult plant exists as a stage between seeds and becomes dispensible after maturing its seed.

Talk about an odd-bedfellow...

BTW, do you ever visit "I Blame the Patriarchy"?

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

I love that blog.

IBTP is a favorite with me, too. Like Glenn, Twisty has her own inimitable way of getting her point across. I just love a sentence like, "Once you toddlerize the poetry out of it, a bible’s just fanfic." Plus, she takes some awesome photos.

When a segment of the population has the chutzpah to set standards of what it perceives to be moral and proper conduct and life style for others, it's plenty wrong. When many of the most vocal and shrill spokespeople for that morality police habitually and cynically violate the same moral conduct they preach to others, it's absurdly wrong and hypocritical. We were supposed to be a nation of 'live and let live'. What we have now is one political party that is really a modern version of the Spanish inquisition. The Republicans want to control what individuals do in their bedroom, while many of them do it in public toilets. Conservatives who preach against gay rights are gay themselves. Conservatives who preach about family values and the sanctity of marriage engage in serial adultery. Predictably, child abuse, incest and divorce are higher in the red states than in the more progressive blue states. How did we allow those hypocritical sanctimonious fuck ups to obtain so much power?

Jesus was regularly badgered by lawyers of The Law over this point and that, and chose to one-up them in every instance. He had no use for false and/or overblown piety, which was precisely the basis on which he felt these lawyers (call them scribes, call them Pharisees...) were approaching him. In the matter of divorce he took exactly the same approach as on previous occasions, deflating the self-righteous posturing of his accosters. We can accept that Jesus meant what he said, but he did not state it as a matter of dogma. Nor was he sermonizing. It was essentially him responding in the manner of "Well, you asked."

That's one problem today's neo-pietists have with Scripture. They don't really want to know, let alone dwell on, what Jesus said, many times quite plainly, to those who at least had the gumption to challenge him to his face. They'd prefer to pretend that no one would have ever dared do such a thing in the first place; it allows them, at their convenience, to leave Jesus' answers on the table.