David Vitter has never been charged with breaking the law and, unlike Craig, David Vitter has never admitted breaking the law.

He has admitted to a grevious sin, but not to breaking any law.

There's an article on free republic that some folks may find interesting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889601/posts

(the comments are mostly the usual illiterate garbage)

This person presents a consistent conservative religious viewpoint that correctly identifies some real issues at hand. I would be very happy if the level of the national discourse could rise to this level, but I'm afraid the Republican campaigners' will feel it is more in their strategic interests to use gay marriage as a catch-all boogeyman representing the terrifying librul bloc.

I feel a culture of hypocrisy has become endemic in the Republican party, politicians are rewarded for confounding issues and reducing all debate down to some mythical binary existential battle. This can be seen all aspects of Republican policy. IMO, it is most damaging to our country in economics and foreign policy, where the same mentality is perhaps even more rampant.

...is the hypocrisy. I don't give a tinker's cuss about what someone does with their personal life. So they want to dump their life partner for a younger model - I don't give a ****. What irks me (to high heaven) is when that same ****er then turns around to "claim" the moral high ground saying they believe in some sacrosanct principle (one that they themselves have violated) and using THAT to condemn ANYONE else.

I believe in living and let live, right up until someone condemns another for betraying that which they themselves have violated. If you want to "stand" for a code, I ask only that you live by it.

"Standing" by a code which you yourself do not live up to reeks of not only hypocrisy, but rank political malfeasance. It proclaims a willingness to exploit those that do not know what one has done. Why would I (or indeed, anyone) trust someone compromised by their own willful actions to enforce their loudly proclaimed 'morals' upon the rest of us 'mere mortals?' That is what baffles me as to the support (from any quarter) for such g**d*** hypocrites. If someone (misguided though they were) wanted to impose their believed morality upon anyone else, why (the f***) would they choose their 'champion' to be someone so compromised by their own actions? To me it makes no sense at all.

Again, if anyone proclaims a 'moral code' by which people are to be held - live by it, or shut the **** up.

Newt should tell us about serving his cancer striken first wife with divorce papers while she was lying in hospital hooked into a morphine drip.

Wasn't that Benito Giuliani?

I think Newt was the one who was having an affair at exact same time he was demanding investigations into Clinton's affair.

David Vitter has never been charged with breaking the law and, unlike Craig, David Vitter has never admitted breaking the law.

What Vitter admitted to -- hiring prostitutes in Washington -- is illegal.

What Mark Foley admitted to was not illegal, but they still pushed him out. Clearly, what distinguishes Larry Craig's case is NOT that he pled guilty to the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

After giving this a little more thought, I have to say I'm in agreement with Boy Howdy. If pressed on the issue, I'm sure McCain WOULD back his argument with some religious/biblical stance. I mean, if he WERE to claim that his "traditional definition" was merely a reference to what is "traditionally" recognized by the courts (marriage between a man and a woman), and someone were to ask, "Then why do you think the law SHOULDN'T be changed?" -- if he weren't to raise the religious/biblical aspect, he would be left with the argument, "Just because." He's obviously pandering to his religious base with his statement, so I'm sure that's the direction his argument would have taken if he had been pressed on the issue.

Ya take a doller looney

Ya take a two dollar tuney.

Ya in town so why not go buy a draft?

Ya go to the Seadog barrroom. W.T. buys!

He served one wife with papers while she was in the hospital undergoing treatment for cancer AND he cheated on another one while participating in the witch hunt against Clinton.

Nice, huh? And he's considering throwing his hat in the ring, too, unless he's convinced there's a decent GOP candidate. (Wonder what he thinks of Romney...)

Giuliani, otoh, informed his (second) wife that he would be divorcing her via press conference, and THEN he tried to install his then-mistress, current-wife, Judi Nathan in the mayor's mansion while he was still married to the mother of his children (who, btw, are not participating in his campaign). Naturally, Donna Hanover (the wife/mother) had a problem with that arrangement and took him to court over it.

In the bible, there are many examples of 'marriages' we wouldn't accept today (women as male property, polygamy). Mark 10:11 is just one of many, many references to the greatest 'threat' to marriage: adultery/divorce. To those who say that 'traditional marriage' isn't what is in the bible, but what courts say, then why the outrage when courts say marriage should be open to gay couples? To those who say traditional marriage should be what a community believes, why the outrage when a city/state votes for gay marriage? To those who say it is what history has passed down to us, why is there no outrage when people marry of different races, or when women divorce men? I mean, historically, in a traditional marriage, women were the property of men (sometimes many women), to be beaten into submission. We are not the puppets of history, or the courts, or a book. We, a free people, decide what we consider just and beneficial to society. That is our core tradition. Couples who love each other and want to create a loving family should be allowed to marry.