Glenn wrote:

The issue is not that McCain sinned in the past. It is that he argues now that the law ought to recognize only "the traditional definition of marriage" while simultaneously demanding that the law recognize and treat as equal his own "marriage," which is as much a deviation from the "traditional definition" as the same-sex marriages he opposes. How can someone with this "family" stand up in public and claim to support the "traditional definition of marriage"?

Glenn, the real issue is that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that the government should define 'marriage' in the first place; and that the government should give permission to people to marry one another.

If a couple (or group) wants to live together without 'marriage' then they should sign a cohabitation contract that suits them.

If a couple (or group) wants to get married then they should find a preacher and get married - some church of some kind will marry any couple.

The government's involvement in the institution of marriage over the last few decades speaks of an intervention that has made everything much worse. Where in the constitution do you find the power given to the government to regulate cohabitation?

Some will claim that 'Christianity' invented the concept of marriage and that only that the 'Christian Church' should be allowed to marry people, if not the state. How absurd. The fact that many take the first century Jewish mythology that was 'edited' and canonised by the Roman Empire as literal history is entirely irrelevant. Any 'church' has the right to marry people; yes even wiccans or whatever you consider 'bad'.

I only read the first ten pages, but nobody (Derbig, you out there?) seems to have bitten on this little gem:

"Republican "traditional family values" hypocrisy thrives

because of the wide distance, between what "family" and "marriage" mean in America today...

-- lsujp"

I think you mean wide stance.

Bah duh, bump.

...because here comes another tidbit from page 14:

Writing about Fred Thompson's rumored gay photos, Senor Oz writes:

"While such rumours may well be the libelous product of a rival Rethug campaign, Fred's staff would do well to question their candidate about any compromising assignations he's had over the years. Because as surely as day follows night, once Fredrick announces his candidacy & the moment he denigrates gay marriage or rights, if those photos exist, they'll surely be coming to light. Further, beyond Thompson's campaign, the GOP should be asking itself how well it could afford the outing of another Law & Order, Traditional Values Republican.

-- DanJoaquinOz"

I'll have to lay off the coffee for today, but this stuff is killing me right now (Derbig, help me out here).

Excellent commentary today, folks, I apologize for not being able to keep the same tone as our more erudite contributors, but I really felt the need to give these two posts a Salon High-Five(TM).

Have a good Sunday, all.

I hate to mention that the Democrats do not control the Congress.

Control of Congress requires more than 50%. It requires over 60% to avoid bills dieing in the abyss of Congress's arcane rules.

If all that was needed is a simple majority then the Dems have 'control', but as has been shown since the election, they do not have any control over their own members which even further quashes the idea that Democrats 'control' anything.

It's obvious that the Republicans are going to use the lack of legislative action as a club in the upcoming elections for they still have incredible power to derail any legislative agenda that the Democrats might have. That coupled with the House leaderships cowardice of not pushing failed bills through again and again if necessary could result in a tougher election than anyone thinks possible.

The Republicans will not go peaceably into the night... Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional...

Pinky:

The Republicans will not go peaceably into the night... Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional...

We catch the whole lot of them with their pants down, ala Craig.

Hey, a guy can still dream, can't he?

McCain may have married money to embark on his career but had he met Charlie Keating sooner, he might currently be America's oldest, richest perhaps inelgible bachelor. I don't care if he married two monkeys who cornered the banana market and made him Zookeeper.

I DO CARE HOWEVER that everyone seems to have forgotten that McCain among others, helped Charlie Keating wreck the lives of more people than would be needed to elect him. I'm a Viet veteran, and HE IS NOT MY HERO! And breaking out the POW tapes for votes is as offensive as it is desparate. Johnny we hardly knew ya' and apparently neither did the 1st Mrs. McCain.

Using various search terms about sex, given recent events, I came across many blogs indicating that Porter Goss's sudden resignation from being director of the CIA was almost surely because of his own involvement in the prostitution ring that got Duke Cunningham fried (in addition to taking payoffs). There was a sense that the revelation of the top spy being so very blackmailable was "the big one" if the MSM did its job. Well... I don't think it did. He was allowed to go quietly and I haven't heard of him since.

You have here 1) the general permission heterosexuals grant one another to be considered respectable merely for being heterosexual, putting aside multiple marriages, use of prostitutes, the occasional rape, spousal abuse, etc. and 2)the establishmentarianism of the MSM and their unwillingness to do the work, take the heat, etc.

Pretty awful.

"Are you trying to say that someone can admit to performing an illegal act, but unless they admit that they committed a crime, they haven't admitted to breaking the law? Does that mean that someone who confesses to killing someone in cold blood hasn't confessed to a crime until he/she actually says "I committed 1st degree murder"? The distinction doesn't make sense."

I am saying that a person can admit to committing a sin without admitting to have committed a crime. All sins are not crimes. Adultry, for example, is a sin, but not a crime in most places.

If one were to actually take it a step further, to many radical fundy Christians, merely thinking about doing the nasty with one who is not one's spouse, is a sin.....and yet it is not a crime. Jimmy Carter once claimed that he had sinned because he had "lust in his heart" and I doubt if anyone, even the most rabid Baptist would consider that Jimmy Carter broke any law.

Vitter has acknowledged that he sinned. That's all he has acknowledged. He has never admitted breaking any law and, to the best of my knowledge, there is not enough evidence on the street to bring charges against him for that lawbreaking, even if the statute of limitations had not passed. They have phone records which do not prove any illegality. There are apparently co-conspirators whose veracity has not been verified, and they (prosecutors) have Vitter admitting to talking on the phone - about what, we don't know.

If you were a prosecutor, would you take the case based upon those facts? Even if you did, it still doesn't mean that Vitter has confessed to any illegal act. Taking it step further, is it a crime to romp about in a diaper with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married?

Vitter's wife has nothing to do with this, except for the fact that she's just as big an asshole as he is. Her statements are not relevant except in the context of her also being a hypocrite.

To me, Vitter is guilty as hell.....of aggravated hypocrisy. Nothing more. Allowing the Republicans to get away with excusing his (ongoing) behavior simply because his sins occured prior to his becoming a Senator, is stupid. He was no less a hypocrite as a House Member than as a Senator. THAT's what progressives should be emphasizing, not his sins.

Both hypocrisy and adultry are the breaking of God's law, but neither is a violation of either Federal law or the laws of Washington, D.C. or the State of Louisiana.