I posted earlier that my ancestors were not allowed to marry legally under British anti-Catholic penal law prior to American Independence, and after Independence, some of them chose not to marry for various reasons, one being Irish stubborn cussedness.

That aside, however, the question of marriage was one that the some of the earliest of the British colonists faced in their new land. The Puritans came up with a civil solution, essentially declaring that no religious sacramental marriage had legal standing, that only civil marriages were "legal."

http://www.common-place.org/vol-04/no-03/talk/

Constrast that with the fact that churches in this country have been performing gay marriages for decades, marriages not recognized by civil authority, an authority which still largely denies gay civil marriages (but more and more is authorizing gender/orientation-nonspecific civil unions).

As others have pointed out, perhaps the ultimate solution is to dispense with civil marriage altogether and opt for universal civil union as the operational legal framework, and leave religious ceremony of marriage to the purview of the institutions that conduct it.

Of course it would mean the End of Western Civilization As We Know It.

Can't have that.

Just saying.

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?

It is when one party is paying the other party for their participation, unfair as it may seem, and totally unfair that this Pamela woman is facing major jail time while Vitter and Goss et almake out like they were victims of evil harlots.

I'm sure everyone on this thread is aware of this by now, but it bears repeating:

You all know this already from Scott Lemieux and others, but the real difference between the Vitter and Craig cases is that Louisiana has a Dem governor, and thus would have replaced Vitter with a Dem, while Idaho's governor is a Republican, and will appoint a Republican to replace Craig -- one that will be a much stronger candidate in the 2008 Idaho Senate election than the badly-weakened Craig would have been. As Glenn Greenwald argues, the difference was all about the GOP's cost-free morality -- ousting Vitter would have cost the GOP a Senate seat, while ousting Craig costs nothing and essentially saves them one.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/new_york_times_4.php

It has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal or illegal. It is politics, plain and simple.

If what was legal or illegal had any relationship with with what occurs in Washington, we would not be in Iraq, there would be no Gitmo, we would still have habeas corpus, FISA would not have been gutted, and all of the criminals in the executive branch would not be retiring to cushy jobs in the private sector where they can devote the rest of their lives to re-writing their roles in this tragedy to the tune of millions of dollars, eventually dying happy and old in their beds.

OK, then clear up the mystery. If it's not illegally soliciting a prostitute, what is the sin David Vitter is confessing?

I acknowledge your broader point. Religions have a long list of common sins, many of which are not crimes. Looking at a Playboy--sin, not a crime, thank God! Using the "Lord's" name in vain--sin, not a crime. Of course, many of those sins are crimes--murder, theft, and soliciting a prostitute (except in Nevada). So, I get your point. I just don't see how it's relevant, except as a typical right-wing tactic to create enough cognitive disonance to give Vitter more wiggle room.

"Jebbie

OK, then clear up the mystery. If it's not illegally soliciting a prostitute, what is the sin David Vitter is confessing?

I acknowledge your broader point. Religions have a long list of common sins, many of which are not crimes. Looking at a Playboy--sin, not a crime, thank God! Using the "Lord's" name in vain--sin, not a crime. Of course, many of those sins are crimes--murder, theft, and soliciting a prostitute (except in Nevada). So, I get your point. I just don't see how it's relevant, except as a typical right-wing tactic to create enough cognitive disonance to give Vitter more wiggle room."

The point is that people have jumped to the conclusion that Vitter confessed to a crime on the same level that Craig confessed to a crime and therefore he should be treated the same way as Craig. That is false. I do not know what sin he is confessing to having done and neither does anyone else except, presumably, his wife. He didn't specify.

He should be treated the same way, politically (not legally) becauase he is a hypocrite, not a lawbreaker because WE DO NOT KNOW whether he broke the law or not.

Thus, Democrats should be insisting that Vitter be purged NOT because he broke a law, but because he's a hypocritical piece of shit. There is NO wiggle room in that regard and by not falling into the real trap (comparing his lawlessness with that of Craig) Of course, Republicans don't care if he's a hypocrite. (unless, of course, he had been listed on the phone records of a male escort service).

Anyway....why waste time on Vitter? Unless someone catches him with a large dog or a small boy, he's going to be reelected.

thanks to conservative perv's for showing the voting public that conservatives are not suitable examples of virtue, just because they are conservative-illustrative!

Vitter and Sherwood were nailed for what Republicans used to categorize as natural practices, and so the Republican leadership didn't try to force Vitter out. But many of the Republican fallen are closet cases, repressed and desperate, battling Sodom by day in the halls of Congress, by night trolling for rough trade in Gomorrah. They gave the liberating Seventies a wide birth, hammered faggotry at a thousand prayer breakfasts, fought to protect Family Values. What does them down is usually some high-odds piece of risk-taking, sexually exciting until the moment the object of desire flashes his Police ID and the jig is up.