Get E-Mail Updates

Mark Sanford's Apology: Neither Sin nor Forgiveness Has any Party Affiliations

Over the course of the 2008 election season, I kept hearing from some of my conservative religious friends of the great presidential hopes they had for a smart and ambitious governor from South Carolina, Mark Sanford. Pressures are now mounting for the governor to resign in wake of his admission to improper liaisons with an Argentinean woman, and it looks like those political hopes might be shelved.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Why does it happen? This most recent scandal is not the first and will not be the last. It was not so long ago that John Edwards was a national figure for the Democrats when the news of his infidelity removed him from the public stage. This story has played out time and time again through the ages; promising figures in power ruining their careers, setting back their work, and inflicting great pain on themselves and their families.

II Samuel tells the story of King David who saw Bathsheba bathing from the roof of his palace. He ordered her to come to his chambers, slept with her, and got her pregnant. To cover what he had done, he sent her husband, Uriah, into a battle where the fighting would be most fierce and then commanded one of his generals to pull back all the other men to ensure that Uriah would be killed. David then took Bathsheba as his wife.

King David, Governor Sanford, Senator Edwards, all men of faith, committed sins in what they thought was private, but eventually, their sins found them out. When I hear stories of men in power committing these kinds of transgressions, I suspect it is never out of the strength of their faith that they commit these acts. Rather, each one had to carve out a space in their lives in which they were able to forget about God -- a place that their faith could not enter. They created in their minds and their hearts a framework in which they could justify their actions, because others do it too, because they "deserved" the right to do these things, because they are passionate people and allowed their passions to have free reign -- all by ignoring the values, and the faith, which dictate the rest of their lives.

This, I believe, is often why we hear a religious theme in their apologies. Scriptures say David cried out, "I have sinned against the LORD." Bill Clinton said, "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned." John Edwards: "Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness." David Vitter: "This is a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession." And now, Mark Sanford: "There are moral absolutes and God's law is there to protect you from yourself. And there are consequences if you breach that."

There was a moment, I am sure, when what had been done in private and in secrecy, in that space in which God had been forgotten, that God returned. With that return, the justifications collapsed and the deep and surely painful recognition of sin as sin came in. I am in no position to know whether Sanford's or any of these men's apologies are sincere, and their actions all come with consequences as the story of David teaches us. But, I do know that, for people of faith, neither sin nor forgiveness has any party affiliations.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-04-2009 @ 12:43pm

It does mean, however, that divorce should be illegal.

by: DHFabian

07-07-2009 @ 1:54pm

Granted, it does appear that he did have an affair, but I don't see what this has to do with his job. If he did cheat, it shows only that he had a time of weakness, and it pales in comparison to the death and destruction brought by the last administration. When it comes to the presidency, the issue is his policies, and whether he encourages a culture of hate and greed or compassion and human decency.

I think hypocrites are "a dime a dozen" in politics because careers rest on the ability to sell oneself, and you do this by telling a targeted group of people whatever they want to hear.

I think it says more than we want to know about the "American character" that the public (or more accurately, our media) bases their opinion of John Edwards on an affair to the exclusion of his political message.

by: Eric77

07-07-2009 @ 5:17pm

The Democrats rejected Edwards and his political message long before his affair become public knowledge.

But the larger point is, should the public take into account a candidate's actions in his or her personal life when considering him or her for public office? I'd say "yes" and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

But I agree with you when you wish that people would take into account other sins such as pride, greed, love of power, etc when it comes to analyzing candidates.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 9:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: DHFabian

07-07-2009 @ 1:54pm

Granted, it does appear that he did have an affair, but I don't see what this has to do with his job. If he did cheat, it shows only that he had a time of weakness, and it pales in comparison to the death and destruction brought by the last administration. When it comes to the presidency, the issue is his policies, and whether he encourages a culture of hate and greed or compassion and human decency.

I think hypocrites are "a dime a dozen" in politics because careers rest on the ability to sell oneself, and you do this by telling a targeted group of people whatever they want to hear.

I think it says more than we want to know about the "American character" that the public (or more accurately, our media) bases their opinion of John Edwards on an affair to the exclusion of his political message.

by: Eric77

07-07-2009 @ 5:17pm

The Democrats rejected Edwards and his political message long before his affair become public knowledge.

But the larger point is, should the public take into account a candidate's actions in his or her personal life when considering him or her for public office? I'd say "yes" and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

But I agree with you when you wish that people would take into account other sins such as pride, greed, love of power, etc when it comes to analyzing candidates.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 7:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 7:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 9:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: SisterMarie

07-02-2009 @ 4:24pm

I think that the relevant question is how much one's private transgressions impinge upon their public life. Thanks to DNA testing, we now know that Thomas Jefferson was not quite the saint that we thought. Does that knowledge in any way diminish the contributions that Jefferson made to establishing our American democracy? Questions have also been raised about other American icons (FDR, Ike, etc). It has only been in recent years with the advent of TV and the 24-hour news cycle that such issues have been thrust to the forefront.

This Sanford case is similar in some ways to other of our modern scandals, but it is also different. In his public appearances, Sanford still gives us the impression that he's really in love with this Argentinian lady and if he had managed to successfully sneak back into his office, that it might not be over. But to me, the biggest factor is the extent to which the Republican Party, (which had held itself out as the party of family values) has failed to match its talk with its walk. There is a long list of Republican presidential wannabes whose chances are diminished by their own transgressions.

No one of any political persuasion can take any pleasure at the potential break-up of a marriage - especially one in which children are involved. To me, the most important question is not whether Sanford continues his term as governor, but the salvaging of his marriage.

by: JamesM

07-02-2009 @ 4:45pm

Very well put. I would hope that all would pray for the governor, his family and his state.

by: WaveTossed

07-02-2009 @ 5:40pm

The problem with Gov. Sandford is his utter hypocracy. He was one of the people speaking of the "sanctity" of marriage, how allowing Gays to marry will somehow "destroy" marriage. Then he goes off and commits adultery. And now people are willing to let him slide on adultery, all while still condemning faithful marriage/civil unions between people of the "wrong" genders.

Jesus said:

Mathew 23

"27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

[NOTE: I only put in below Gov. Sanford's opinions about marriage]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Civ...

No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

by: snad

07-02-2009 @ 5:47pm

First, let me state that I am not interested in Gov. Sandford's infidelities; that is a private matter and does not have anything to do with how he performs his job.

Having said that, there are a number of issues that are important to me. Sanford was a very vocal proponent of impeaching President Clinton for his indiscretions. He also claims to be a supporter of DOMA and opposed to equality for gays in marriage, presumably using the "sanctity of marriage" argument. How hypocritical.

There are also questions surrounding his misuse of state money to pay for at least this latest trip/tryst in Argentina. That misuse, if it is found to be true, should be reason enough for him being removed from office, if not prosecuted.
He has stated that he will "pay back" every penny of state money he spent. Well, he better; but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Finally, I get the strong impression that Sanford's apology and stubborn refusal to resign, combined with the constant trickle of tawdry and tedious detail about the affair make me feel he is performing a sort of public flagellation. How unseemly. He probably understands that media consumers' prurient penchant for scandal may actually make a martyr out of him - a poster child for the victims of double standards, if you will. Ironic, considering his political stance on marriage.

Frankly, I'm tired of the love triangle of sex, politics and scandal. It is a distraction. I just want to make sure this man is doing his job, is not pilfering state funds for personal dalliances, and is not hiding behind a mask of sanctimony while applying an unreasonable code of conduct to everyone but himself.

by: anniepace

07-02-2009 @ 6:42pm

I think that there are so many issues of this story that give me pause but the most thought provoking is that the connection that this Governor has with "The Family" that crystalizes for me the pattern of this incident with so many others. "The Family" has a basic philisophy that they are God's chosen, they are above moral judgement because they are chosen and that the end justify the means if they as the chosen deem that their interpretation of the choices are "God's will." Change just a little of the words and we are now living as Nazi's where they believed they were chosen and that thier ends justified the means. I can only pray, God help us all as this belief system takes over and starts to run out of control. God help us all.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 2:59pm

Agreed, but couldn't the same be said of any of the persons listed in Wallis' article? Sanford was against something based out of his interpretation of his faith; he's also against adultery based on the same theology/convictions. Same with Bill Clinton, same with John Edwards. They went against their convictions, just like Sanford. That you disliked his policies and what he advocated for doesn't mean it's any worse than the rest. Wallis made very excellent points.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 3:01pm

I think your point about his hypocrisy is a key reason why Wallis was claiming that these things aren't bound by parties and political boundaries. Sanford made a key mistake in believing that he could live beyond those limits, while advocating against Clinton's own lifestyle choices. It's pretty sad, really. You make some great points.

by: SisterMarie

07-02-2009 @ 4:24pm

I think that the relevant question is how much one's private transgressions impinge upon their public life. Thanks to DNA testing, we now know that Thomas Jefferson was not quite the saint that we thought. Does that knowledge in any way diminish the contributions that Jefferson made to establishing our American democracy? Questions have also been raised about other American icons (FDR, Ike, etc). It has only been in recent years with the advent of TV and the 24-hour news cycle that such issues have been thrust to the forefront.

This Sanford case is similar in some ways to other of our modern scandals, but it is also different. In his public appearances, Sanford still gives us the impression that he's really in love with this Argentinian lady and if he had managed to successfully sneak back into his office, that it might not be over. But to me, the biggest factor is the extent to which the Republican Party, (which had held itself out as the party of family values) has failed to match its talk with its walk. There is a long list of Republican presidential wannabes whose chances are diminished by their own transgressions.

No one of any political persuasion can take any pleasure at the potential break-up of a marriage - especially one in which children are involved. To me, the most important question is not whether Sanford continues his term as governor, but the salvaging of his marriage.

by: JamesM

07-02-2009 @ 4:45pm

Very well put. I would hope that all would pray for the governor, his family and his state.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2009 @ 3:23pm

Oh, don't get me started on Bill Clinton. Absolutely, he commited adultery: his so-called "explanation" that "I did not have sex with that woman" was pure balderdash (I could say another word that isn't suitable in a family forum). And he was the one who had the audacity to sign the DOMA (so-called "Defense Of Marriage Act") that was supposed to "defend" the "sanctity of marriage" (which he never practiced himself). What a hypocrite. Matthew Chapter 23 would apply to him as well.

John Edwards commited adultery. I'm not sure how he voted in the DOMA vote. I don't make any excuses for any of these philandering politicians because of their political party.

I guess that my point is that Sanford (just like Bill Clinton) was a hypocrite. Both of them went on about the "sanctity" of marriage that must be "protected" against same-gender marriage. And both of them flouted completely the sancitity of their marriages. Both of them publically appologized for their adultery. However, neither one to this day has ever apologized or repented for the hypocracy that both have shown in supposedly "defending" marriage against same-gender marriage.

by: WaveTossed

07-02-2009 @ 5:40pm

The problem with Gov. Sandford is his utter hypocracy. He was one of the people speaking of the "sanctity" of marriage, how allowing Gays to marry will somehow "destroy" marriage. Then he goes off and commits adultery. And now people are willing to let him slide on adultery, all while still condemning faithful marriage/civil unions between people of the "wrong" genders.

Jesus said:

Mathew 23

"27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

[NOTE: I only put in below Gov. Sanford's opinions about marriage]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Civ...

No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

by: snad

07-02-2009 @ 5:47pm

First, let me state that I am not interested in Gov. Sandford's infidelities; that is a private matter and does not have anything to do with how he performs his job.

Having said that, there are a number of issues that are important to me. Sanford was a very vocal proponent of impeaching President Clinton for his indiscretions. He also claims to be a supporter of DOMA and opposed to equality for gays in marriage, presumably using the "sanctity of marriage" argument. How hypocritical.

There are also questions surrounding his misuse of state money to pay for at least this latest trip/tryst in Argentina. That misuse, if it is found to be true, should be reason enough for him being removed from office, if not prosecuted.
He has stated that he will "pay back" every penny of state money he spent. Well, he better; but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Finally, I get the strong impression that Sanford's apology and stubborn refusal to resign, combined with the constant trickle of tawdry and tedious detail about the affair make me feel he is performing a sort of public flagellation. How unseemly. He probably understands that media consumers' prurient penchant for scandal may actually make a martyr out of him - a poster child for the victims of double standards, if you will. Ironic, considering his political stance on marriage.

Frankly, I'm tired of the love triangle of sex, politics and scandal. It is a distraction. I just want to make sure this man is doing his job, is not pilfering state funds for personal dalliances, and is not hiding behind a mask of sanctimony while applying an unreasonable code of conduct to everyone but himself.

by: anniepace

07-02-2009 @ 6:42pm

I think that there are so many issues of this story that give me pause but the most thought provoking is that the connection that this Governor has with "The Family" that crystalizes for me the pattern of this incident with so many others. "The Family" has a basic philisophy that they are God's chosen, they are above moral judgement because they are chosen and that the end justify the means if they as the chosen deem that their interpretation of the choices are "God's will." Change just a little of the words and we are now living as Nazi's where they believed they were chosen and that thier ends justified the means. I can only pray, God help us all as this belief system takes over and starts to run out of control. God help us all.

by: Minnesotan

07-04-2009 @ 12:10am

If God calls us to be faithful to our spouses (whom Jesus requires to be of the opposite sex - see Matthew 19:1-4), and someone then violates those norms, he may be a hypocrite, but it does not mean his policies are wrong and that we should legalize same-sex marriage. If Mark Sanford secretly had a second wife, we could call him a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, but it would not mean that we should change public policy and legalize polygamy. Same-sex "marriage" still violates the red-letter words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and that does not change if the people who agree with Jesus have committed adultery or have remained faithful to their spouse.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-04-2009 @ 12:43pm

It does mean, however, that divorce should be illegal.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 2:59pm

Agreed, but couldn't the same be said of any of the persons listed in Wallis' article? Sanford was against something based out of his interpretation of his faith; he's also against adultery based on the same theology/convictions. Same with Bill Clinton, same with John Edwards. They went against their convictions, just like Sanford. That you disliked his policies and what he advocated for doesn't mean it's any worse than the rest. Wallis made very excellent points.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 3:01pm

I think your point about his hypocrisy is a key reason why Wallis was claiming that these things aren't bound by parties and political boundaries. Sanford made a key mistake in believing that he could live beyond those limits, while advocating against Clinton's own lifestyle choices. It's pretty sad, really. You make some great points.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2009 @ 3:23pm

Oh, don't get me started on Bill Clinton. Absolutely, he commited adultery: his so-called "explanation" that "I did not have sex with that woman" was pure balderdash (I could say another word that isn't suitable in a family forum). And he was the one who had the audacity to sign the DOMA (so-called "Defense Of Marriage Act") that was supposed to "defend" the "sanctity of marriage" (which he never practiced himself). What a hypocrite. Matthew Chapter 23 would apply to him as well.

John Edwards commited adultery. I'm not sure how he voted in the DOMA vote. I don't make any excuses for any of these philandering politicians because of their political party.

I guess that my point is that Sanford (just like Bill Clinton) was a hypocrite. Both of them went on about the "sanctity" of marriage that must be "protected" against same-gender marriage. And both of them flouted completely the sancitity of their marriages. Both of them publically appologized for their adultery. However, neither one to this day has ever apologized or repented for the hypocracy that both have shown in supposedly "defending" marriage against same-gender marriage.

by: Minnesotan

07-04-2009 @ 12:10am

If God calls us to be faithful to our spouses (whom Jesus requires to be of the opposite sex - see Matthew 19:1-4), and someone then violates those norms, he may be a hypocrite, but it does not mean his policies are wrong and that we should legalize same-sex marriage. If Mark Sanford secretly had a second wife, we could call him a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, but it would not mean that we should change public policy and legalize polygamy. Same-sex "marriage" still violates the red-letter words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and that does not change if the people who agree with Jesus have committed adultery or have remained faithful to their spouse.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

07-02-2009 @ 4:24pm

I think that the relevant question is how much one's private transgressions impinge upon their public life. Thanks to DNA testing, we now know that Thomas Jefferson was not quite the saint that we thought. Does that knowledge in any way diminish the contributions that Jefferson made to establishing our American democracy? Questions have also been raised about other American icons (FDR, Ike, etc). It has only been in recent years with the advent of TV and the 24-hour news cycle that such issues have been thrust to the forefront.

This Sanford case is similar in some ways to other of our modern scandals, but it is also different. In his public appearances, Sanford still gives us the impression that he's really in love with this Argentinian lady and if he had managed to successfully sneak back into his office, that it might not be over. But to me, the biggest factor is the extent to which the Republican Party, (which had held itself out as the party of family values) has failed to match its talk with its walk. There is a long list of Republican presidential wannabes whose chances are diminished by their own transgressions.

No one of any political persuasion can take any pleasure at the potential break-up of a marriage - especially one in which children are involved. To me, the most important question is not whether Sanford continues his term as governor, but the salvaging of his marriage.

by: SisterMarie

07-02-2009 @ 4:24pm

I think that the relevant question is how much one's private transgressions impinge upon their public life. Thanks to DNA testing, we now know that Thomas Jefferson was not quite the saint that we thought. Does that knowledge in any way diminish the contributions that Jefferson made to establishing our American democracy? Questions have also been raised about other American icons (FDR, Ike, etc). It has only been in recent years with the advent of TV and the 24-hour news cycle that such issues have been thrust to the forefront.

This Sanford case is similar in some ways to other of our modern scandals, but it is also different. In his public appearances, Sanford still gives us the impression that he's really in love with this Argentinian lady and if he had managed to successfully sneak back into his office, that it might not be over. But to me, the biggest factor is the extent to which the Republican Party, (which had held itself out as the party of family values) has failed to match its talk with its walk. There is a long list of Republican presidential wannabes whose chances are diminished by their own transgressions.

No one of any political persuasion can take any pleasure at the potential break-up of a marriage - especially one in which children are involved. To me, the most important question is not whether Sanford continues his term as governor, but the salvaging of his marriage.

by: JamesM

07-02-2009 @ 4:45pm

Very well put. I would hope that all would pray for the governor, his family and his state.

by: JamesM

07-02-2009 @ 4:45pm

Very well put. I would hope that all would pray for the governor, his family and his state.

by: WaveTossed

07-02-2009 @ 5:40pm

The problem with Gov. Sandford is his utter hypocracy. He was one of the people speaking of the "sanctity" of marriage, how allowing Gays to marry will somehow "destroy" marriage. Then he goes off and commits adultery. And now people are willing to let him slide on adultery, all while still condemning faithful marriage/civil unions between people of the "wrong" genders.

Jesus said:

Mathew 23

"27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

[NOTE: I only put in below Gov. Sanford's opinions about marriage]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Civ...

No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

by: WaveTossed

07-02-2009 @ 5:40pm

The problem with Gov. Sandford is his utter hypocracy. He was one of the people speaking of the "sanctity" of marriage, how allowing Gays to marry will somehow "destroy" marriage. Then he goes off and commits adultery. And now people are willing to let him slide on adultery, all while still condemning faithful marriage/civil unions between people of the "wrong" genders.

Jesus said:

Mathew 23

"27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

[NOTE: I only put in below Gov. Sanford's opinions about marriage]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Civ...

No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

by: snad

07-02-2009 @ 5:47pm

First, let me state that I am not interested in Gov. Sandford's infidelities; that is a private matter and does not have anything to do with how he performs his job.

Having said that, there are a number of issues that are important to me. Sanford was a very vocal proponent of impeaching President Clinton for his indiscretions. He also claims to be a supporter of DOMA and opposed to equality for gays in marriage, presumably using the "sanctity of marriage" argument. How hypocritical.

There are also questions surrounding his misuse of state money to pay for at least this latest trip/tryst in Argentina. That misuse, if it is found to be true, should be reason enough for him being removed from office, if not prosecuted.
He has stated that he will "pay back" every penny of state money he spent. Well, he better; but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Finally, I get the strong impression that Sanford's apology and stubborn refusal to resign, combined with the constant trickle of tawdry and tedious detail about the affair make me feel he is performing a sort of public flagellation. How unseemly. He probably understands that media consumers' prurient penchant for scandal may actually make a martyr out of him - a poster child for the victims of double standards, if you will. Ironic, considering his political stance on marriage.

Frankly, I'm tired of the love triangle of sex, politics and scandal. It is a distraction. I just want to make sure this man is doing his job, is not pilfering state funds for personal dalliances, and is not hiding behind a mask of sanctimony while applying an unreasonable code of conduct to everyone but himself.

by: snad

07-02-2009 @ 5:47pm

First, let me state that I am not interested in Gov. Sandford's infidelities; that is a private matter and does not have anything to do with how he performs his job.

Having said that, there are a number of issues that are important to me. Sanford was a very vocal proponent of impeaching President Clinton for his indiscretions. He also claims to be a supporter of DOMA and opposed to equality for gays in marriage, presumably using the "sanctity of marriage" argument. How hypocritical.

There are also questions surrounding his misuse of state money to pay for at least this latest trip/tryst in Argentina. That misuse, if it is found to be true, should be reason enough for him being removed from office, if not prosecuted.
He has stated that he will "pay back" every penny of state money he spent. Well, he better; but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Finally, I get the strong impression that Sanford's apology and stubborn refusal to resign, combined with the constant trickle of tawdry and tedious detail about the affair make me feel he is performing a sort of public flagellation. How unseemly. He probably understands that media consumers' prurient penchant for scandal may actually make a martyr out of him - a poster child for the victims of double standards, if you will. Ironic, considering his political stance on marriage.

Frankly, I'm tired of the love triangle of sex, politics and scandal. It is a distraction. I just want to make sure this man is doing his job, is not pilfering state funds for personal dalliances, and is not hiding behind a mask of sanctimony while applying an unreasonable code of conduct to everyone but himself.

by: anniepace

07-02-2009 @ 6:42pm

I think that there are so many issues of this story that give me pause but the most thought provoking is that the connection that this Governor has with "The Family" that crystalizes for me the pattern of this incident with so many others. "The Family" has a basic philisophy that they are God's chosen, they are above moral judgement because they are chosen and that the end justify the means if they as the chosen deem that their interpretation of the choices are "God's will." Change just a little of the words and we are now living as Nazi's where they believed they were chosen and that thier ends justified the means. I can only pray, God help us all as this belief system takes over and starts to run out of control. God help us all.

by: anniepace

07-02-2009 @ 6:42pm

I think that there are so many issues of this story that give me pause but the most thought provoking is that the connection that this Governor has with "The Family" that crystalizes for me the pattern of this incident with so many others. "The Family" has a basic philisophy that they are God's chosen, they are above moral judgement because they are chosen and that the end justify the means if they as the chosen deem that their interpretation of the choices are "God's will." Change just a little of the words and we are now living as Nazi's where they believed they were chosen and that thier ends justified the means. I can only pray, God help us all as this belief system takes over and starts to run out of control. God help us all.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 2:59pm

Agreed, but couldn't the same be said of any of the persons listed in Wallis' article? Sanford was against something based out of his interpretation of his faith; he's also against adultery based on the same theology/convictions. Same with Bill Clinton, same with John Edwards. They went against their convictions, just like Sanford. That you disliked his policies and what he advocated for doesn't mean it's any worse than the rest. Wallis made very excellent points.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 2:59pm

Agreed, but couldn't the same be said of any of the persons listed in Wallis' article? Sanford was against something based out of his interpretation of his faith; he's also against adultery based on the same theology/convictions. Same with Bill Clinton, same with John Edwards. They went against their convictions, just like Sanford. That you disliked his policies and what he advocated for doesn't mean it's any worse than the rest. Wallis made very excellent points.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 3:01pm

I think your point about his hypocrisy is a key reason why Wallis was claiming that these things aren't bound by parties and political boundaries. Sanford made a key mistake in believing that he could live beyond those limits, while advocating against Clinton's own lifestyle choices. It's pretty sad, really. You make some great points.

by: xfree9

07-03-2009 @ 3:01pm

I think your point about his hypocrisy is a key reason why Wallis was claiming that these things aren't bound by parties and political boundaries. Sanford made a key mistake in believing that he could live beyond those limits, while advocating against Clinton's own lifestyle choices. It's pretty sad, really. You make some great points.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2009 @ 3:23pm

Oh, don't get me started on Bill Clinton. Absolutely, he commited adultery: his so-called "explanation" that "I did not have sex with that woman" was pure balderdash (I could say another word that isn't suitable in a family forum). And he was the one who had the audacity to sign the DOMA (so-called "Defense Of Marriage Act") that was supposed to "defend" the "sanctity of marriage" (which he never practiced himself). What a hypocrite. Matthew Chapter 23 would apply to him as well.

John Edwards commited adultery. I'm not sure how he voted in the DOMA vote. I don't make any excuses for any of these philandering politicians because of their political party.

I guess that my point is that Sanford (just like Bill Clinton) was a hypocrite. Both of them went on about the "sanctity" of marriage that must be "protected" against same-gender marriage. And both of them flouted completely the sancitity of their marriages. Both of them publically appologized for their adultery. However, neither one to this day has ever apologized or repented for the hypocracy that both have shown in supposedly "defending" marriage against same-gender marriage.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2009 @ 3:23pm

Oh, don't get me started on Bill Clinton. Absolutely, he commited adultery: his so-called "explanation" that "I did not have sex with that woman" was pure balderdash (I could say another word that isn't suitable in a family forum). And he was the one who had the audacity to sign the DOMA (so-called "Defense Of Marriage Act") that was supposed to "defend" the "sanctity of marriage" (which he never practiced himself). What a hypocrite. Matthew Chapter 23 would apply to him as well.

John Edwards commited adultery. I'm not sure how he voted in the DOMA vote. I don't make any excuses for any of these philandering politicians because of their political party.

I guess that my point is that Sanford (just like Bill Clinton) was a hypocrite. Both of them went on about the "sanctity" of marriage that must be "protected" against same-gender marriage. And both of them flouted completely the sancitity of their marriages. Both of them publically appologized for their adultery. However, neither one to this day has ever apologized or repented for the hypocracy that both have shown in supposedly "defending" marriage against same-gender marriage.

by: Minnesotan

07-04-2009 @ 12:10am

If God calls us to be faithful to our spouses (whom Jesus requires to be of the opposite sex - see Matthew 19:1-4), and someone then violates those norms, he may be a hypocrite, but it does not mean his policies are wrong and that we should legalize same-sex marriage. If Mark Sanford secretly had a second wife, we could call him a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, but it would not mean that we should change public policy and legalize polygamy. Same-sex "marriage" still violates the red-letter words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and that does not change if the people who agree with Jesus have committed adultery or have remained faithful to their spouse.

by: Minnesotan

07-04-2009 @ 12:10am

If God calls us to be faithful to our spouses (whom Jesus requires to be of the opposite sex - see Matthew 19:1-4), and someone then violates those norms, he may be a hypocrite, but it does not mean his policies are wrong and that we should legalize same-sex marriage. If Mark Sanford secretly had a second wife, we could call him a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, but it would not mean that we should change public policy and legalize polygamy. Same-sex "marriage" still violates the red-letter words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and that does not change if the people who agree with Jesus have committed adultery or have remained faithful to their spouse.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-04-2009 @ 12:43pm

It does mean, however, that divorce should be illegal.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-04-2009 @ 12:43pm

It does mean, however, that divorce should be illegal.

by: DHFabian

07-07-2009 @ 1:54pm

Granted, it does appear that he did have an affair, but I don't see what this has to do with his job. If he did cheat, it shows only that he had a time of weakness, and it pales in comparison to the death and destruction brought by the last administration. When it comes to the presidency, the issue is his policies, and whether he encourages a culture of hate and greed or compassion and human decency.

I think hypocrites are "a dime a dozen" in politics because careers rest on the ability to sell oneself, and you do this by telling a targeted group of people whatever they want to hear.

I think it says more than we want to know about the "American character" that the public (or more accurately, our media) bases their opinion of John Edwards on an affair to the exclusion of his political message.

by: DHFabian

07-07-2009 @ 1:54pm

Granted, it does appear that he did have an affair, but I don't see what this has to do with his job. If he did cheat, it shows only that he had a time of weakness, and it pales in comparison to the death and destruction brought by the last administration. When it comes to the presidency, the issue is his policies, and whether he encourages a culture of hate and greed or compassion and human decency.

I think hypocrites are "a dime a dozen" in politics because careers rest on the ability to sell oneself, and you do this by telling a targeted group of people whatever they want to hear.

I think it says more than we want to know about the "American character" that the public (or more accurately, our media) bases their opinion of John Edwards on an affair to the exclusion of his political message.

by: Eric77

07-07-2009 @ 5:17pm

The Democrats rejected Edwards and his political message long before his affair become public knowledge.

But the larger point is, should the public take into account a candidate's actions in his or her personal life when considering him or her for public office? I'd say "yes" and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

But I agree with you when you wish that people would take into account other sins such as pride, greed, love of power, etc when it comes to analyzing candidates.

by: Eric77

07-07-2009 @ 5:17pm

The Democrats rejected Edwards and his political message long before his affair become public knowledge.

But the larger point is, should the public take into account a candidate's actions in his or her personal life when considering him or her for public office? I'd say "yes" and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

But I agree with you when you wish that people would take into account other sins such as pride, greed, love of power, etc when it comes to analyzing candidates.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 7:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 7:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 9:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.

by: nuclearferret

07-08-2009 @ 9:12pm

Yes, better to not care about marriage having any kind of sanctity...then you can't be accused of being a hypocrite when you cheat.