David Vitter Apolgizes For Serious Sin

Doesn't every politician run on some sort of "I'm a moral person" platform?

I mean I've never seen a politician run on the "I'm a coke head who will screw hookers and embezzle all of your tax money" platform.

That aside, unless he was screwing male whores I don't see where he is hypocritical at all.

 

You have to be disappointed in him considering his pro-family statements in the past, and the fact that he has been a key voice in family-oriented legislation. This will certainly hurt his credibility and it may cost him his voice in family issues. But the fact that it happened six years ago, and he has resolved the matter with his family serves to mitigate against the political effects it will have on him. I don't expect this will hurt his chances for re-election.

 

Bill Jefferson was re-elected, so that doesn't mean much in Louisiana. What will hurt him is his ability to pursue any legislation and/or give speeches on family, moral behavior, etc., which is the cornerstone of his political career.

He may get re-elected, assuming he doesn't resign over this. But his political career is basically dead.

 

I would agree that Vitter's opposing gay marriage because of the sanctity of marriage and his own scandalous life choices is hypocritical. His personal hypocrisy does not make his stance an incorrect one though.

 

You may be right. The re-election of Jefferson and Nagin indicate so.

His more difficult challenge may be re-erection.

:hihi:

 

So what reason could he have to oppose gay marriage other than outright bigotry? If two consenting adults want to enter into the contract of marriage, why do people feel like the US Govt has the right to tell them no?

I mean, is it really fair to gay couples, many of whom may have been together for many years, to not have the equivalent rights to straights in certain matters like taxes, death, inheritance, etc? Why is that only a priviledge that straight people should have?

 

none, he is a bigot.

i dont know why the government has to approve marriages, why would a gay person care what the government did?

[qoute]I mean, is it really fair to gay couples, many of whom may have been together for many years, to not have the equivalent rights to straights in certain matters like taxes, death, inheritance, etc? Why is that only a priviledge that straight people should have?[/QUOTE]

i think you should check if the dude opposes civil unions. many politicians opoose gay marriage but are ok with civil unions, which means they allow gay marriage. they just like to use the word for straight couples.

my opinion is there has never been a less relevant issue in the history of the world. this is like the pluto debate. a planet? not a planet? makes no difference, it is just words.

 

What is clear is that a line must be drawn somewhere. Can long time roommates be eligible for the same rights as married folks? Can a man marry his dog and get a second standard deduction? Are siblings who live together eligible for the same protections as a married couple?

Since a line must be drawn somewhere why not draw it at a union between a man and woman. This is consistent throughout all of human history. No culture has ever considered a bond between same sex couples to carry additional benefits.

I do not oppose gay couples having some of the rights associated with marriage, but most of those rights can be changed without redefining what humanity has always understood a marriage to be.

 

His political career is far from over.