The Edwards Affair
by tgirschAugust 9th, 2008
It’s just disgusting and gut-wrenching. I think Blake Dvorak gets it exactly right:
… Edwards was a presidential candidate while he was having an affair. His conduct was not just a disgrace to the highest office for which he felt qualified, but also to a party that, had it nominated him, would have reaped the fallout we’re seeing today. Edwards’ candidacy never took off, but if it did, as he and millions of his supporters wanted it to, then today might have been one of the the darkest days of the Democratic Party.
Did Edwards consider that? He must have, and he must have ignored it. And then he lied and tried to cover it up. As the ABC News story notes, Rielle Hunter has been living “under assumed names in a series of expensive homes in North Carolina and, more recently, in Santa Barbara, California.” Edwards denies paying her off, but said it’s possible friends and associates might have. It’s actions like these which give the public every reason to question Edwards’ integrity — a key characteristic most would argue for a president — and not excuse it as “just sex.”
That, I think, is why Edwards’ political career is now over. All politicians who want to become president have an ego problem, but what is asked of them is to sacrifice part of themselves for the greater good — whether that be a political party or an entire nation. By his actions, Edwards has shown he wasn’t able to do that: He was willing to ruin the hopes of his party and the trust of his family and voters to win the highest prize.
I really wanted to like Edwards, and his message about the divide between the haves and have-nots is one that needs to get more attention. Edwards’ political career deserves to die. I just hope that message doesn’t die with it.
Categories: News & Current Events, Politics |
Has Edwards ever pushed legislation againt, or been assigned to enforcement against, what he did? I don’t think so (Tell me if I’m wrong.).
Is saying the tabloids are full of shit a problem? Certainly not.
Now, assuming that what he says about making up with his family is true, that means the only thing he’s guilty of is being in a position to have his carreer destroyed by others, for an act that wasn’t a crime.
Normally, we call that “guilt” victim-blaming. It’s just a more ellaborate form of “He’s not a rapist; her skirt was too short.”.
Yeah, he should have asked his wife before he banged another woman while she was unavailable due to illness. Does that warrent destroying his carreer? Heck, does that warrent any public notice?
Humans have sex. That’s a good thing. That we expect politicians to do otherwise is just dumb. The fact that we make a hubbub about that expectation being broken is just insane.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Politicians, like professional athletes, are in the public spotlight whether they like it or not, and as such, they should be expected to set a positive example. Cheating on your dying wife doesn’t qualify, no matter what other circumstances may be involved.
Further, he was doing this at a time when his actions potentially impacted a lot more people than just himself and his immediate family. His actions could have hurt his entire party (and, I’d argue, the country by extension). The “victim” here is not Edwards, by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe I’m still a little old fashioned, but I generally don’t think it’s too much to ask that people are faithful to their spouses, especially people who are in the public spotlight through their own choosing. Now you can argue that this should be so damaging to someone’s political career, and we can debate that point. But the fact is that it is, whether you approve of that or not, and the fact that it does so much damage was hardly a secret when Edwards entered into the affair.
Sorry, it just seems a little backwards to me to say “Well, now that we know this, we must end his carreer. And the reason he shouldn’t have done it is that it would end his carreer!”
Yeah, certainly he should have asked his wife’s permission. Then again, it’s pretty fucked up that both men and women are currently socialized to think that doing so would be out-of-line. This isn’t Spitzer, this is an expectation of de jure sexual monism that is de facto sexual nilism. That’s unnatural and stupid.
He was in a situation which demanded insane behavior and he chose the wrong failure point. I think he deserves a pass on it.
This is hilarious. Not the actions of Edwards, that is disgusting and bad, but the reaction of democrats to it. Two words: Bill Clinton.
I kinda have to side with Derf on this, much to my surprise. Clinton got a free pass for infidelity and has seen his speaking career improve as well as being presented another opportunity to have significant influence in the White House, but Edwards gets fried and deserves to lose his political career? I don’t follow the logic.
I’m with Dan, on both his comments. I don’t care how other people live their private lives, and I still believe in the “public/private distinction” that was once at the core of liberalism.
There may or may not be a lot of things wrong with how Edwards handled the situation, and how he treated his wife. That depends on details we don’t know and, because they are private, shouldn’t know. At any rate that’s their issue to work out. Elizabeth has behaved with magnificent grace, and we ought to let her have the last word on the matter.
But, while I understand the “recklessness” charge, I’m not entirely sympathetic. What that amounts to is that decent people should let Republicans and religious prudes dictate their lives to them, and live those lives by other people’s perverse and limiting phobias, out of fear that if they don’t the prudes and creeps will make an issue of it. That’s obviously counterproductive. For one thing, it doesn’t buy you any security: paying off bullies just encourages them, and, as we know, the prudes and the creeps will just find some other issue to harass you on anyway. (Remember the shitstorm Edwards has been listening to for 5 years now, about the way he combs his hair? Why would he possibly want to let the same people who cook up such stupid nonsense also tell him how to live his sex life?) Worse, it means other people get to destroy the important parts of your life at their whim. Dan is right: sex is a good thing, and there are many ways of working out relationships around the issue of sex - none of it, as far as the Edwardses are concerned, is our business.
I really wish Clinton had dealt with the Lewinsky thing the same way Edwards handled his affair: told his wife privately and then dealt with the public issue only when necessary. There would have been no investigation, and today there would also be no Edwards issue. Playing along with the bullies and creeps is what got both of them into this mess, and what makes it possible for that to threaten a campaign. Like Clinton with marijuana, once somebody simply tells the creeps to get lost, the issue goes away.
I’d like to find a Democrat who would deal with these issues the same way this fictional Republican does (minus the pants-full-of-guns bit):
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c271185752
That’s the kind of thing we need!
“out of fear that if they don’t the prudes and creeps will make an issue of it.”
I agree with you. I think liberals should live as they please, let everyone know about their perversities, and tell anyone who doesn’t like it where they can go. Letting decent people know about their debauchery and who they really are and not trying to hide it would be helpful. Let’s see how many would win elections.
Based on Dan M.’s comments, so much for the sanctity of marriage or the commitment of two people to each other. It seems he has no use for people being in a committed relationship. Part of that commitment means there will be times we need to put our own personal desires to the side in order to make the relationship work.
If Dan M. is an example of how Democrats view marriage, no wonder they couldn’t care less about it. And if commitment within a marriage means nothing when vows have often been taken in front of a priest/preacher and whatever god the person worships, then why on earth should anyone trust any other vow or commitment that person makes?
Based on Dan M.’s comments, so much for the sanctity of marriage or the commitment of two people to each other.It seems he has no use for people being in a committed relationship.
I don’t think that necessarily follows from what Dan M. is saying. It seems to me that he’s arguing against forcing our ideas of what’s a healthy, committed relationship onto others. On that, I don’t disagree with him. I had friends who had an open marriage, and I don’t think it’s my place to say that their relationship was somehow not “committed.”
If Dan M. is an example of how Democrats view marriage, no wonder they couldn’t care less about it. And if commitment within a marriage means nothing when vows have often been taken in front of a priest/preacher and whatever god the person worships, then why on earth should anyone trust any other vow or commitment that person makes?
I find this deeply, deeply offensive. Just because I may not share every aspect of your idea of what makes up a “proper” marriage doesn’t mean that I “couldn’t care less about it.” Further, I’ve been married and faithful for over ten years, and my marriage vows were not taken before a priest or preacher, nor were they made in the name of any god. This in no way lessens my commitment to my wife or to my marriage.
Where the Edwards thing bothers me is that for one, I don’t think his marriage was an open one, so there was indeed a violation of trust there. And apart from hurting his wife (something which shouldn’t be dismissed as quickly as KTK and Dan seem to want to, in my book), owing to the timing of the whole mess, he violated not only the trust of his wife, but also of his supporters and of his party. Because he knew his behavior would be extremely damaging to all of these if it came to light, and did it anyway, that’s what bugs me. Fair or not, it reinforces a negative stereotype against Democrats.
I also agree with KTK and Dan about the double-standard that seems to exist. Infidelity really only seems to be a huge issue when it’s a Democrat involved (unless it’s same-sex, in which case the GOP then gets it, too).
Well then, since his marriage apparently didn’t mean anything to him, how about granting that RIGHT to other people for whom it WILL mean something?
Wasn’t Edwards anti-gay marriage?
“since his marriage apparently didn’t mean anything to him,”
If a person stays does that mean his marriage doesn’t mean anything to him. If it doesn’t mean anything to him why did he try to repair the damage?
“how about granting that RIGHT to other people for whom it WILL mean something?”
Yeah, right. Homosexuals would never stray so they should have the right to marry. That really makes sense. They are not faithful to morality, but they would be faithful in “marriage.”
tgirsch > my apologies for offending you. There are a number of different types of marriages and I in no way intended to indicate that a god or religious figures needed to be part of it.
What offended me about Dan M.’s comments was his stated belief that since Edwards could not have sex with his wife that it was insane to think he should just go without sex. If they came out as a couple and said “we agreed he could have sex elsewhere to satisfy his needs” then his statement about others pushing their attitudes and beliefs would hold water. But they didn’t. So then it becomes a matter of Dan M. saying people who hold to ideas about sex that he disagrees with are insane, stupid, whatever. Is he then not doing exactly what he is accusing others of?
“Is he then not doing exactly what he is accusing others of?”
Yes. That’s typical of diversity loving liberals.
With a few exceptions, most gay or lesbian individuals I’ve encountered don’t particularly consider what they do a matter of morality, or avoid a particular method if that method is morally prohibited. Depending on your definition of morality, that means they either ignore general or follow their system of morality, not act unfaithfully.
Even outside of marriage, a sizable portion of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual populace sticks to serial monogamy. Open or poly relationships just get too messy to be worthwhile. A sizable majority, according to surveys, only have a few relationships over entire lifespans.
That’s not to suggest that faithfulness is particularly relevant on the matter of homosexual marriage, but the myth that 2-5% of the population matches the gay pride parade stereotype is rather heavily incorrect.
As for Edwards, I’ll take the fairly libertarian viewpoint on the matter; his personal relationships were personal matters. I don’t particularly care if an individual screws individuals of the same gender or the opposite, in no relationship, a closed one, or an open one.
Note the word were. When he knowingly lied, and violated the agreements he made with his wife, and made himself a prick the same way he criticized Clinton for doing a decade ago (Edwards voted no for perjury and obstruction of justice, so don’t suggest his earlier statements were about just the lying).
He made the topic public. And while I don’t particularly care if a Congressmen or Congresswoman is having sex with innies or outies, I do care if they’re screwing with me.
TG,
I cede the point that Edwards should have known that this would be a scandal, regardless of whether he could have handled it in a way respectful to his wife. That’s a black mark on our society, but it’s true.
And let me stress again that he did mess up with respect to his commitment to his wife. The question is what the scale of that error is compared to any other human failing in a political leader. I do note that the vast history of otherwise-competent people making errors in their sex lives strongly suggests that it’s really not that important to the public.
You and I certainly disagree on this one, but not as much as it at first appears.
Derf:
As usual, your comments are laughable in their irony. It would do so much good if liberals stuck to their prinicles of letting private lives be private — oh that horrible debauchery — while conservatives make a grand show of their fine decency in wanting others’ sexual choices to abrogate their equality under the law. I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what took us from the Stonewall Inn in ‘69 to marriage equality in MA and CA.
BU,
Okay, I see how what I’ve said could seem to mean what you’re understanding me as saying, but it’s certainly not what I wanted to say. My apologies for the muddle.
Now let me try again. (1) I certainly think it’s insane to expect all people to choose only celebacy or sex with a single partner, which is certainly the position that social conservatives give lip service to. (2) I also think it’s pretty damned weird to expect all committed emotional relationships to include as a requirement sexual exclusivity, which is certainly presumed by current western standards of “marriage”. (3) It’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of humans want to have sex, and generally continue to do so throughout their lives.
What I find most apalling is that there is just strong socialization of the expectation of (2) and frequently a denial of (3), that even smart, socially adept people, like the Edwards (both of them!) probably never considered the fact that it’s their marriage, and that they (together!) could have opted out of (2) on the grounds that (3) was perfectly reasonable.
The obvious follow-up to this is that if they can’t figure it out, then the public at large probably can’t either, which is why TG is actually right that Edwards could have anticipated that an affair would harm his carreer. (Incidentally, this is why feminism if for males, too; being told that you’re evil for wanting to act like a human is a pretty brutal aspect of contemporary male gender norms.) It’s not conservatives who are insane for choosing sexual monogomy (Good for them! Polyamory is a big pain in the butt.), it’s society that’s insane for wanting that to be the only choice. (And some individual people are insane because they act all surprised in those cases when humans do continue to want sex.)
I’m certainly not representative of most (publicly visible) Democrat’s views of marriage. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a politician (other than some very fringe third-party types) advocated anything more radical than giving everybody access to the same traditional binary, strongly-gendered marriage that’s already supported by the overwelming majority. While this is certainly a paucity of liberality, it’s not a very surprising one, and I’d be quite happy with the mere improvement of making the mediocre policy fair. (I suspect that there’s about the same chance of an openly poly politician getting elected as there is of an atheist being allowed to stop paying tax dollars for a congressional chaplain. That is, just about zero.)
Ouch. I apologize for the KTK-sized post.
“to abrogate their equality under the law.”
What rights do I have that homosexuals don’t have? You have yet to tell me.
Derf Irom, they assume that the underlying right is for marriage (specifically legal recognition of a marriage under code of law), not right of (legal recognition of) heterosexual marriage.
The distinction is difficult, and there’s a significant number of examples of other rights treated in each method, either reduced by details or left uncategorized.
“they assume that the underlying right is for marriage”
Where do they get the idea that homosexual marriage is a right? Not in the Constitution, law, or history. They just want it to be a right, so they think they have the right to it. It’s not difficult.
Legal recognition of marriage is recognized in every single state. Thanks to the 14th amendment, that means that citizens of the United States may not be denied that particular recognition. For all purposes and means, that makes it a civil right.
If there’s a right to legal recognition of marriage, it can’t be denied to citizens of the United States; legal jurisprudence about the 14th amendment makes it clear that rights can not be denied solely on the basis of sexual orientation without matching a pretty high level of intermediate scrutiny. If there right is to legal recognition of heterosexual marriage, then that’s not such an issue.
It’s really not clear which, or if either, are the case. Just as you can’t claim freedom of speech by allowing only one type of speech, you can’t claim equal protection under the law just because the statute makes a distinction. On the other hand, there are examples where rights and privileges are limited based on how they interact and the details.
I can’t claim to know for sure, and in all honesty I don’t give a damn. I don’t see that much harm in providing financial incentives for people that already identify as gay or lesbian to go toward something closer to conventional monogamy, but the various GLT groups are almost universally assholes and I don’t see alienating religious and conservative groups as being a particularly worthwhile trade for the slip of paper and easily disappearable economic benefits. All I can state are the details I know, and the viewpoint liberals have on the matter as opposed to your viewpoint.
Note that this just recognition of such under law for corresponding laws (and some state and federally funded programs). The folk attempting to force religious groups to marry them are pretty clearly in the wrong; the first amendment is rather clear on the matter no matter how much liberals bring up the spectre of anti-miscegenation groups in the past.
Thanks for the clarification Dan M. Sorry if I over-reacted due to misunderstanding your original post and KTK’s enthusiastic endorsement of it.
On my other point, why are Democrats freaking out on Edwards but they have always defended and supported Clinton for essentially doing the same thing? Not being in the US, perhaps I am missing out on a certain perspective because it doesn’t make sense to me.
Thank you very much, Gattsuru. You’re entirely correct about how recognition of marriages is a civil right. No government authority has the power to create marriage, only the power to recognize marriages created by people. And of course, in a free country, no church has anything whatsoever to say about such civil contracts. And I don’t know of any suggestions at all that churches should be required in any way to change whatever it is they do with their “religious marriages”.
“Thanks to the 14th amendment, that means that citizens of the United States may not be denied that particular recognition. For all purposes and means, that makes it a civil right.”
And you think the purpose of the 14th amendment was to assure the civil right of homosexuals to marry? If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arkansas. This “right” is completely made up in the heads of liberals. It’s amazing that for a hundred years no one thought it applied to homosexual perversion.
I would still like to know why it seems that nearly every discussion in here eventually turns to homosexuality. Don’t you perverts and pervert supporters think of anything else?
That’s easy. Everytime you try to claim the moral high ground, we can simply point to your ‘decency’ of opposing civil rights on the basis of what people do in their bedrooms. It’s what you asked for in #7.
Keep opposing civil rights and people will keep pointing out that you’re evil. As LarryE said, you can go back to sucking your thumb now.
HAHAHAHA!
Off topic: Do not go searching the internet for pictures of thumb-sucking, unless you really are in the mood for perversions.
No, and I was rather clear about both that, and that what I’ve stated as other people’s opinions are not my own, and that there is no “right to marry” itself being discussed here — there’s no way under the 1st amendment that you can stop gay or lesbian individuals from having a marriage ceremony, even in places where a state Constitutional amendment prohibiting legal recognition of such exists. The 14th amendment provides a limited number of rights, but none of them were related to sexuality at the time.
There can not be a human right to legal recognition of marriage; it exists merely as a slip of paper from the government. Nor can the government assure such a thing; it can only recognize a right for as long as the right remains.
The specific portion of the 14th amendment which states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” recognizes that there exists a few specific rights including the right to equal protection of the law; if one person is given a specific protection, all others under similar conditions must. In such a way, it provides states and the federal government the ability to recognize new civil rights; if you created a law providing a privilege for the option purple hair for women, there would be a corresponding privilege for the option of purple hair for men (at least until the law changed under judicial or sane legislative pull).
The only exceptions are laws that are so limited that they pass intermediate scrutiny. That there is a significant government interest, which is furthered by substantially related means. A hundred years ago, both would be self-evident. Twenty-five years ago, you’d be odd but not unusual to argue otherwise. Now… a lot of people aren’t sure they can think of anything other than revenue.
You can argue that a heterosexual marriage license and a homosexual one are significantly different enough that the laws don’t fall under equal protection jurisprudence. There are cases like the right to assemble where that distinction would not save the case, and others like the right to bear arms where it unfortunately would. You can argue that there’s a worthwhile reason somewhere. You can argue that it squicks you out. You can argue that it’s an extra tendril creeping out into the world, you can argue that it doesn’t fit your version of morality, you can argue that what’s worked for the last two hundred years needs not change, you can get people to recognize that San Fransiscans get kinda creepy, you can bring up demographics, you can talk about a lotta different stuff.
I’m just trying to present the other viewpoint.
you can argue that what’s worked for the last two hundred years needs not change
Even just in this country, marriage has changes quite a bit in the past 200 years. It’s not like marriage was some static, etched-in-stone thing before the idea of same-sex marriage came along. There have been many changes in law with respect to age of consent, polygamy, divorce, miscegenation, etc., in our nation’s history. So I think it grossly oversimplifies things to even try to discuss “what’s worked for the last two hundred years.”
All arguments are gross oversimplifications. I want to now the price of a sandwich, not the economics of wheat and lettuce or the chance of a sandwich appearing or disappearing by quantum miracle.
People feel that way; it’s a valid argument for them and thus needs to be recognized with more than a quick wave of the hand.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of how many polygamy bans there were two centuries ago. Beyond that, none of those are part of what you’re planning to change. Those laws not only didn’t work, they were busted. I think you underestim ate the level of scale this feels like for a lot of people. I know I don’t feel it — I go both ways, and I don’t feel or notice gender the way most people do, gay, straight, or bisexual — but I can see people that do. I’ve seen men make fantasies about threesomes and hear the tones of bigots wierded out by a “salt and pepper” marriage. You see a lot of stuff out there, but you don’t see people stop watching.
This can. Whether in people who’d proudly take up the homophobic tag, or in folk who support equality or more but go from uncomfortable and nervous to carefully staring anywhere but a certain pair.
I’ve not got the right to stand up and call that vile prejudice, pragmatic disgust, or anywhere in between. I can say it’s a level of fundamental change. I can say that it’s a just concern, for both sides.
“we can simply point to your ‘decency’ of opposing civil rights”
You don’t need to keep pointing it out. I agree that I am opposed to “civil rights” for homosexuals to marry. I also oppose plural marriages, beastiality, incest, murder, robbery, etc. There is no shame in opposing evil. Your certainly don’t cause me pain by pointing that out. Thank you for doing so. Please continue.
Gee, I didn’t realize that “people feel that way” is the standard for something being a “valid argument.” I guess it’s valid to argue that the Earth was created in six days because “people feel that way,” and it’s valid to argue that Obama’s a secret Muslim because “people feel that way.”
And the award for best pun of the thread goes to…
Dan M. for Good for them! Polyamory is a big pain in the butt.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a politician (other than some very fringe third-party types) advocated anything more radical than giving everybody access to the same traditional binary, strongly-gendered marriage that’s already supported by the overwelming majority…
And it is on this ground that I would argue against the very first point you made here:
Has Edwards ever pushed legislation againt, or been assigned to enforcement against, what he did? I don’t think so (Tell me if I’m wrong.).
Edwards maintaining a position as a highly visible member of one of the two mainstream American political parties, and his professed commitment to the general value system thereof is implicit endorsement of monogamous marriage as being the only true kind. At least, it should be inferred so in the absence of him explicitly stating otherwise.
Fred:
You should Kurt Cobain yourself. I mean, people feel that way!
I hope you have a long life.
Jumped the gun (pun, yay!), the “people feel that way” comment was made by Gatt.
I don’t apologize to my comment to Fred, the phrasing just isn’t particularly novel.
Yes, tgirsch, everybody knows there could not possibly be a single or individual legitimate government interest in a subject related to people being disgusted.
What was your position on those fetus anti-abortion posters, again?
Not a single interest. Nope, nope, nope.
“the phrasing just isn’t particularly novel.”
Like usual
What was your position on those fetus anti-abortion posters, again?
Did I take an official position on that? If so, I sure don’t remember doing so. If I’ve ever argued that these ought to be illegal, I sure would love for you to point that out to me.
tgirsh, so I guess you think that Clinton, Reagan, JFK, Eisenhower, FDR, Abe Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson (to name a few former Presidents with shameful episodes in their private lives) were all disgraces to our nation and failed presidents.
Geez, Americans should grow up already and realize that nobody is in what Catholics like to call a “state of grace.” We all have private lives and many, if not most, Americans have done things they regret and would never want made public.
Chester A. Arthur brought a bit of sanity to the whole issue when he was prodded about whether he drank alcohol by a temperance crusader:
“Madam, I may be the President of the United States, but my private life is my own damn business.”
An Australian friend of mine is fond of remarking that, once upon a time, England sent all its criminals to Australia and all its religious nuts to North America. Australians figure they got the better of the deal. Our seamy, prudish, yet curiously prurient interest in the private sexual indiscretions of politicians, especially in the face of the incredible disasters and challenges our nation is facing continues to flabbergast me.
If a politician can be
* honest, competent, and inspiring in his or her public duties,
* effective in attacking our economic meltdown,
* reversing the massive redistribution of wealth to the already obscenely rich,
* resurrecting our failing public school system,
* rebuilding our rotting national transportation, water, electrical, and sewage infrastructure,
* ending the war in Iraq and putting an end to torture and tactics more reminiscent of the old USSR than historical America,
* restoring a government of laws that once again honors the Constitution and international law,
* slashing the overwhelming power and influence private corporations have established in our political system,
* creating a single-payer, tax-funded, government-administered health insurance system,
* restoring our relationships with our allies around the world,
* stopping the current political campaign model of using lies, distortions, and misstatements to smear honorable candidates,
* dedicating a “Manhattan project” to developing new clean, renewable energy sources and freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, while reversing the headlong rush toward the tipping point in global warming,
I, for one, don’t care if he or she is fond of having sex with small, furry animals found lying dead by the roadside in the glow of the moonlight.
There are no saints in the real world. Let’s at least get our priorities straight and sane.
“tactics more reminiscent of the old USSR than historical America,”
Nonsense
The thing that bothers me the most about Edwards is that he engaged in behavior that was seriously risky within the context of his career. A career that, by its very nature, tends to impact the lives of many people. That is unsettling to me.
On the other hand, what is the statute of limitation on this type of behavior? Is McCain safe because of the passage of time or because he was not a politician at the time of his infidelity? I imagine it is the latter…
Digg, fred really doesn’t know any better. You do. Your Cobain comment offends me. For whatever that’s worth.
“Your Cobain comment offends me.”
His comment was not out of line with his character. As for your snide comment about me not knowing any better, I dare you to show any place that I have called for the death or welcomed the death of a political opponent. I think the death of a liberal is a sad thing. His wrongheaded politics doesn’t diminish his humanity.
Tgirsch, I wanted to know what your opinion on the matter was. I know you commented on at least one case, and you’re a fairly smart individual, so I expect that you’ve developed one by this point.
It’s a pretty crude example, so if you think the content irrelevant to the discussion of whether the posters were constitutionally protected… well, I think the courts would have a bone to pick with you, but I can find clearer examples.
Ted, McCain’s news is nearly thirty years old, and he got a boatload of flack about it back then. I think it kinda kicked off the whole “maverick” thing he has going when the Reagans gave him the cold shoulder, and it was a big deal for most of his first election.
It’s not the eighties anymore. It’s a lot less telling about his current positions and honesty than the hundreds of stupid things he’s done since then.
gatt:
If that’s all, it’s repugnant but shouldn’t be illegal. I’ve been face to face with those people, and would love to punch them in the nose, but I’m not about to abrogate their free speech rights.
Ted,
Why does it offend you, are you a big Nirvana fan? My apologies to Courtney Love, and (not so little anymore I guess) Frances Bean, but I care none about the preservation of Fred.
Sorry, I guess I’m just callous like that - I subscribe to the “the only thing that is moral is that which disposes of the immoral” philosophy. I’d never wish ill will upon those who have not explicitly communicated their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy, but once you do (under three aliases no less), I have no compassion anymore.
Luckily, only God can judge me, ain’t that right, Fred?…
Derf’s Irom writes:
“tactics more reminiscent of the old USSR than historical America,”
Nonsense
—————————
Let’s see: military show trials timed for political advantage, involving detainees who have been held without legal due process for years, part of the time in secret “black” prisons abroad, using secret “evidence” that the defendant and his legal representatives can’t see, anonymous “witnesses” that the defendent and his lawyer can’t confront, and confessions acquired through torture (using an interrogation manual originally translated from Chinese that was used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions from American POWS), with an administration-appointed supervisor telling one of the JAG officers in advance that they can’t allow any acquittals, and with the administration announcing after the verdict that even when the convicted driver’s sentence is over, Bush retains the “right” to continue his indefinite detention.
Sounds like a Soviet show trial to me.
Making up “facts” and expressing looney conspiracy theories don’t show anything except your character. Do you have your tinfoil hat on? Those black helicoptors flown by Bush and Cheney are looking for you. Go hide before it’s too late.
Fred, I didn’t imply you had wished death on anyone. I was referring to your comments in this thread that are offensive to all but the most strident of bigots.
“I was referring to your comments in this thread that are offensive to all but the most strident of bigots.”
You calling me a bigot is really funny. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Since I missed this earlier, Dan M. :
No, as a definitional thing, a free country allows non-governmental groups to say whatever they want about civil contracts, or for that matter anyone else about anything else. That’s the whole freedom of speech thing. You can certainly state that, after a certain point, if the positions those individuals advocate are taken up that the country would stop being free, but that’s an issue whether the policy comes from rational discussion or religious fervor.
As for individuals trying to force churches to perform religious marriages, I’m sorry to say that there are idiots that foolish out there. They’re currently so far out of the norm to be nearly powerless, but there are already court cases that have punish individuals who were unwilling to provide services covered under freedom of speech for gay marriages but for heterosexual ones, such as the Elain Photography case.
This is the internet age; there is no side so brilliant that it has no followers that you wouldn’t miss if they left, no strawman a fool is unwilling to hoist around.
Tgirsch
So, there’s no legitimate argument on the matters, court cases aside? Obscenity rules?
Oh, and to be clear, the court cases have mostly gone in the favor of dead fetus photos, like in the above case, although not always. It still comes up as a legitimate argument (or the courts wouldn’t even grant certorati or provide an in-depth answer), and the courts sometimes detail when and what situations (semi-public fora are pretty high up there) in which the disgust is enough.
“No, as a definitional thing, a free country allows non-governmental groups to say whatever they want about civil contracts, or for that matter anyone else about anything else.”
Many liberals don’t understand the concept that the church is composed of people and is not an independent creature. Church members do no have any less right to organize and present their opinions on any subject in spite of the attempted intimidation by those who preach the so-called Church-state separation. Church members are no second class citizens.
Gatt,
When I said “have no say about”, I should have said “have no say in“. Sure, churches can say what they want about others’ business, but not exert any control over it.
Gatt,
The photography case you cite isn’t germain. That’s not a church, which means it’s not explicitly protected from regulation; it’s not providing a religous ritual (not surprisingly); and it’s running a public busines, which makes it subject to laws about dealing with the public, including anti-discrimination laws.
While I know that libertarianism has philosophic objections to regulation even when its purpose and effect is to increase liberty, it should be pretty obvious that that’s exactly the same kind of anti-discrimination law as is already well-established in this country. Even if you think such laws do more harm to the freedom of businesses than the good to the freedoms of customers, that’s a separate discussion. The only thing novel about this application is that a new group of people is getting the protection.
Better, although I’d still say that churches should have similar levels of control as any other group of like-minded people, at least unless you plan to make civil contract law some sort of immutable legal theory. I can understand not wanting churches (or other religious institutes) to have some sort of veto power on marriages, and that’s one of the reasons common-law marriages and civil court marriages exist, but speaking about what benefits get attached to a government-enforced contract is pretty well understood as covered by the first amendment. That’s the case whether it’s an official registered protester calling Bushitler, or the Cautious Old Lady’s Friday Knitting Circle sending out pamphlets completely unrelated to the COLFKC.
So, to return to the original post,
One of the regular commenters at PZ Meyers has a very informative post about Edwards: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/marriage_adultery_and_the_law.php
This points out something that I completely forgot about, namely, that some places still do have laws disallowing a married couple from deciding who else they’re allowed to have sex with. Frankly, it boggles my mind that somebody still thinks there should be criminal pentalties for consentual sex.
Dan M, it’s a business that provides expressive content to its clients. Photography has been well-documented as covered by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of ’speech’ and expressive conduct — it’s been some of the ACLU’s best and worst work, depending on your viewpoint. That’s been the case for pornography for commercial ventures, it certainly covers taking pictures of a ceremony.
It is explicitly protected from regulation, for the very same reasons that you can not simply pony up the cash and magically force Sorkin to provide a conservative version of The West Wing (beyond there simply not being enough cocaine on the planet).
This may well be a good law. There are certainly times where it’s more important that people are not mindlessly and inaccurately discriminated against even if that involves forcing people to express things or associate with individuals. It’s still a law that says my right to association or expression is not as valuable as the government’s assurances against discrimination.
Last I checked, the protections for association and expression are rather similar to the ones for religious freedom. It’s not the same thing, but it’s a surprisingly close thing.
You use that word, liberty, when you mean “force person to do X for me”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I can understand criminal penalties for consensual sex in a number of cases. If it violated a contract agreed to by a third party, it’s not exactly good news. There are a few other reasons that come to mind, both obvious (public indecency) and less so (the number of types of illegitimate consent are rather mindboggling).
Providing criminal penalties for a trusting open marriage seems like a bit of an illegitimate use of government power to me, although I know there’s no precedent behind such.
Frankly, it boggles my mind that somebody still thinks there should be criminal pentalties for consentual sex.
As gatt already pointed out, this can easily be construed as a breach of contract. Still not the same thing as a crime, but nevertheless…
Um, that’s why I emphasized “criminal”. I’m not too surprised by penalties, but criminal ones are entirely out of place.
For certain and exceptional breaches of contract, criminal penalties are not exactly impossible to understand. Given the civil penalties for adultery being on the scale of half of your economic value, it seems to be a rather exceptional breach of contract.
Having it a long felony seems a bit ridiculous to me, but this is Massachusetts; they can slap you in jail for years if you carry a single cartridge brass across the border, so apparently MA is really strict.
The laws may be unconstitutional, though, under Lawrence v. Texas. Dunno what would come of challenging it, though.
Having half your economic value isn’t a penalty for divorce; it’s a consequence. While the theory under which alimony is awarded is certainly outdated, it’s simply not the same thing as a penalty; it’s a regulation of the understanding of a married couple as a singe economic entity. Also, I’m pretty sure that it’s becoming progressively rarer for that size of alimony to be awarded, what with it being rarer for wives to be exclusively home-makers.