Another sad twist to the Sanford scandal – apparently, the South Carolina governor’s spiritual mentor was wrong when he told the press that he “absolutely” believed Gov. Sanford’s unfaithfulness to his wife was the first in their marriage.
In a statement to the Washington Times, Sanford admitted that during his marriage, he has been romantically involved with women other than the Argentinean he visited last week.
“Prior to being governor, I crossed lines that a husband should not cross,” Sanford told the paper, “but I have never crossed the ultimate line with respect to unfaithfulness, other than what I’ve already acknowledged in excruciating detail.”
Yesterday, philosophy professor Christopher Tollefsen discussed the problem of hypocrisy, in a nod to such charges made against the governor known in part for his socially conservative leanings.
“Of course it is not for any other person to judge of some particular politician to what degree that politician’s repentance is genuine or not,” Tollefsen wrote, adding a more sober counterpoint to the vitriolic tone that many Sanford critics have taken on the blogosphere.
But, Tollefsen continued, “pro-family or pro-life politicians who abandon their families, pro-reform leaders who violate the law, or even church leaders who fail to protect their flock all bring to their causes a crisis of faith when their dissembling is made known, a crisis they must grieve at if they are as truly committed as they claim.”
He concluded that “for the sake of their own character and for the sake of the values they claim to hold dear, immediate resignation from public life seems, in almost every case, to be the best course.”
Hypocrite or not, one lesson that seems to be emerging from Gov. Sanford’s drama is that no marriage is immune to the dangers of temptation to infidelity. The AP story on Warren “Cubby” Culbertson, the man who gave the quote at the top of this post, reflects this, as it portrays a governor whose own spiritual mentor was taken by surprise by his adultery.
“You can choose your sins, but you can’t choose your consequences,” Culbertson said, saying this was a theme that he and his wife taught in couples classes that the Sanfords were a part of. “We used to use (King) David as an example of that. Mark may be the 2009 version of a good example.”
For Sanford, those consequences will be, as he put it, “excruciating.”
Meanwhile, it seems recognition of same-sex marriages will be foisted on District of Columbia residents, whether they want it or not.
We’ve mentioned before the push for a referendum on a D.C. council decision to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states – the Board of Elections refused to put the issue up to a vote, saying it violated the district’s Human Rights Act.
Opponents of same-sex marriage suffered another blow this week as a D.C. superior court judge dismissed their motion to stall the new law. A referendum on the issue, the judge said, would have been improper and discriminatory, as current law makes it “unlawful for the government to deny services or benefits based on membership in a protected category.”
The judge also was dismissive of the petitioners’ claims of a right to referendum.
“They simply disagree with legislation enacted by our duly-elected Council,” she said. “A citizen’s disagreement with constitutionally sound legislation, whether based on political, religious or moral views, does not rise to the level of an actionable arm.”
-- Elizabeth Ela, Headline Bistro editor
Comments