Marriage is a Sacred Bond Between a Man and a Woman, and a Woman, and a Woman

David Weigel | July 11, 2007

Would you believe whoremongering Sen. David Vitter was all gah-gah for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Want to bet he gave an emotional floor speech praising the the sanctity of one-man-one-womanhood?

When he gets to "how important those relationhips are in terms of influencing behavior in our society," you're going to wish there was a loud, booming Sports Night season 1-style laugh track.

For another perspective, here's Jeremy Lott on why hypocrisy is perfectly ok.

Comments

|7.11.07 @ 9:07AM|#

Well, there's no evidence he was ever cavorting with more than one woman at a time.

|7.11.07 @ 9:08AM|#

This brings the total number of dickless Senators up to 18, counting Specter.

HA! I'm sure that's a conservative number.

|7.11.07 @ 9:09AM|#

Hey now, rich and powerful men getting a little on the side is every bit as traditional as telling your new bride she has to leave her job and spend the next couple of decades in the kitchen.

No hypocrisy here. The man's a traditionalist, through and through.

Russell|7.11.07 @ 9:17AM|#

Jeremy forgot to mention that Chomsky's vroom vroom power boat depends on Big Oil

Ellie|7.11.07 @ 9:18AM|#

I have a very strong temptation to get a bunch of those Focus on the Family bumper stickers, cut them up, and line them up on my bumper so it says

Marriage = Man + Woman or Man + Man or Woman + or Man + Man + Woman or Man + Woman + Woman or ...

But I have no doubt that it would get me fired or, at least, my boss would make me park outside the office lot.

|7.11.07 @ 9:19AM|#

Apparently Sen. Vitter loves him some hokkers long time:

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/07/madam_vitter_a_client_at_canal.html

|7.11.07 @ 9:19AM|#

There's a different between saying, "I was wrong to do X" and saying, "I was right to do X, but you can't do it."

|7.11.07 @ 9:20AM|#

Um, yeah, "hokkers".

|7.11.07 @ 9:21AM|#

So aren't the various Reason staffers who have written recently about Vitter also hypocrites for giving him a hard time about doing something that they believe is morally okay?

Alice Bowie|7.11.07 @ 9:28AM|#

i belive the more Judges, Congressmen, Police Officers are EXPOSED for infidelity, prostitution, drug abuse, corruption, etc.etc.etc, will simply weaken the Conservative Movement abd all the efforts many of us r tryin 2 achive (a more moral society).

More should be done to keep this stuff quiet.

The goal is to elimiate these things throughout. Just b-cause 1 or 2 of us are guiltly...doesnt' mean we shouldn't try to elimiate these evils.

VM|7.11.07 @ 9:40AM|#

Ellie - a great idea!!

|7.11.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Ellie wins the thread!

|7.11.07 @ 10:17AM|#

barris,

Uh, no. Hypocrisy is doing something that you say is wrong; I don't think Reason staffers have said criticizing people is wrong.

By your logic, you must agree with a hypocrite in order to criticize them.

anon.|7.11.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Dan T.,

It's Vitter's hypocrisy they're criticizing, not his whore-mongering. Among Reason staffers who've commented on Vitter, which ones think being a hypocrite is morally okay?

And, in any event, what makes you think all the commenters believe prostitution is "morally okay"? One of the things that distinguishes libertarians from others on the political spectrum is that libertarians don't think mere immorality is sufficient reason outlaw behavior. That doesn't mean we believe that all behavior that should be legal is also moral.

|7.11.07 @ 10:20AM|#

By your logic

There is no logic to a Dan T./Barris post. He's just like my 5 year old niece who, on Saturday, made me watch every silly thing she did in the swimming pool, because she couldn't perform without having an audience.

Frankly, I wish he'd go join the freak show, or something else for which he is equally talented.

|7.11.07 @ 10:22AM|#

There's a different between saying, "I was wrong to do X" and saying, "I was right to do X, but you can't do it."

Yes, but that's not what a hypocrite does. If a person says that it's right for them to do X but not for others to do X, they are not a hypocrite by doing X (because they aren't contradicting what they say by what they do). A hypocrite says it's wrong for anyone, including himself, to do X, and then does it anyway.

You don't seriously believe that Vitter would be apologizing if he hadn't been "outed", do you? He's saying he's sorry because he got caught.

|7.11.07 @ 10:37AM|#

crimethink: you are correct. I'm saying that the latter bothers me, whereas the former doesn't bother me as much.

|7.11.07 @ 10:41AM|#

I should say that I don't really care where Vitter deposits his genetic filth. His defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment is wrong because it is bad policy, not because he's an asshole who cheats on his wife with prostitutes.

Nick Yemana|7.11.07 @ 11:21AM|#

jf,

What did she do on Sunday?

|7.11.07 @ 11:37AM|#

It's Vitter's hypocrisy they're criticizing, not his whore-mongering. Among Reason staffers who've commented on Vitter, which ones think being a hypocrite is morally okay?

But to use a term like "whore-mongering", which everybody recognizes is derisive, indicates a disapproval with the practice of patronizing prostitutes.


And, in any event, what makes you think all the commenters believe prostitution is "morally okay"?

Because one of the most important tenets of libertarianism is that any mutually agreed upon contract between two parties is morally okay.

One of the things that distinguishes libertarians from others on the political spectrum is that libertarians don't think mere immorality is sufficient reason outlaw behavior. That doesn't mean we believe that all behavior that should be legal is also moral.

That's an interesting point - libertarians usually agree that it should be illegal for one person to physically harm another. How is that not a moral distinction?

Not to mention that very few people seriously think that all behaviors that they find immoral should also be illegal.

|7.11.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Because one of the most important tenets of libertarianism is that any mutually agreed upon contract between two parties is morally okay.

No, it's not. The tenet to which you're alluding is that govt should not interfere with a mutual agreement between two parties unless it violates the rights of others. It does not speak to the morality or immorality of such agreements.

|7.11.07 @ 11:41AM|#

Am I the only one wondering how many congressional aides are busily drafting similar "I have sinned in my past" type boilerplate statements even as we speak?

|7.11.07 @ 11:53AM|#

"But to use a term like 'whore-mongering', which everybody recognizes is derisive."

Somebody was asleep during the ironic 90s. I can say whore-mongering as a criticism of Vitter's stance on the issue, thereby highlighting his indiscretion at the same time. Just because I pick the most inflammatory word or phrase for something doesn't mean I disapprove of the act, and depending on the context, I might not even be criticizing the act. I might must be using your own language to hang you by your own rope.

|7.11.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Am I the only one wondering how many congressional aides are busily drafting similar "I have sinned in my past" type boilerplate statements even as we speak?

You'd think anybody with a job on the Hill would be required to have one on file within a week of getting hired.

William Pearson|7.11.07 @ 12:19PM|#

He just writes the law, folks. Obeying it is just something us little people have to do.

Text from Senator Vitter, Whoremonger from Louisiana, speech on the sanctity of marriage:
[Congressional Record: June 6, 2006 (Senate)]
[Page S5450-S5484]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr06jn06-156]
...Mr. President ( of the Senate), often in the Senate we get very wrapped up in our debate and our laws and proposals and Government programs. We think so much is changed by that and so much hinges on that. Yet what is so much more important and more fundamental are those enduring--hopefully enduring--social institutions such as marriage, community, church, and
faith communities. We need to realize how central those sorts of institutions are and how important they are in terms of influencing behavior in our society--good and bad behavior. When we look at so many of the social ills we try to address in Congress with Government programs and proposals, serious social problems such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the like, perhaps the single biggest predictor
of good results versus bad results is whether kids come from a stable, loving, nurturing, two-parent family, a mother and a father. That doesn't mean you cannot have success raising a child in other environments, such as in a struggling one-parent household. It means that the odds are so much more stacked against you when you move to that other sort of environment.
So I think it is very appropriate and well overdue that we in the Senate focus on nurturing, upholding, preserving, and protecting such a fundamental social institution as traditional marriage.
.. speech continues ad nauseam

How about this Constitutional Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting the institution of marriage or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Or this one:

Congress shall make no law.

I like the second one better. Marriage between a one man and a one woman is a good idea, but like most good ideas shouldn't be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

VM|7.11.07 @ 12:21PM|#

"Marriage between a one man and a one woman is a good idea"

as good as one between two men or two women?

|7.11.07 @ 12:23PM|#

No, it's not. The tenet to which you're alluding is that govt should not interfere with a mutual agreement between two parties unless it violates the rights of others. It does not speak to the morality or immorality of such agreements.

We're getting into semantics, but I'd argue that you're still making a moral distinction when you say that said agreement must not violate the rights of others. You're saying that some agreements are okay and others are not, and it's morally okay for the government to interfere in the ones that are not.

Sal Paradise|7.11.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Can we please just start a "2 + 2 = 4" thread and see how long it takes Dan T. to disagree with it?

Old cranky married guy|7.11.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Marriage between a one man and a one woman is a good idea...

I can tell you've never been married. ;)

cgee|7.11.07 @ 12:57PM|#

When he gets to "how important those relationhips are in terms of influencing behavior in our society," you're going to wish there was a loud, booming Sports Night season 1-style laugh track.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of DeNiro's Max Cady laughing crazily at Problem Child in the movie theater.

|7.11.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Can we please just start a "2 + 2 = 4" thread

2 + 2 = 22. I don't see a 4 anywhere in there.

|7.11.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Dan, I'm not one of those who thinks you're just a venal troll. In fact, I think your kind of devil's advocacy usually prepares people pretty well for real world arguments. But you're really reaching with that one.

The things that libertarians universally acknowledge as "not morally okay" are not agreements. You can't agree to be robbed or raped (both true, evil crimes, even to those wacky libertarians). If you do, it's not robbery or rape anymore; it's presents and sex, and those things aren't (or at least shouldn't be) prosecutable.

Now, if you want to argue that sometimes even mature adults should be forced to do things they don't want to, or point out that there are gray areas where "consent" becomes a fuzzy concept, or if you want to pursue your more subtle tack of saying that by agreeing to live in some or another jurisdiction we implicitly subjugate ourselves to the whims of whatever government is in charge at the moment, then that's fine. But don't try to suggest the laughable notion that, say, theft is just one kind of "agreement" that libertarians aren't okay with.

|7.11.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Dan, I'm not one of those who thinks you're just a venal troll. In fact, I think your kind of devil's advocacy usually prepares people pretty well for real world arguments. But you're really reaching with that one.


Thanks...I have a sarcastic streak but usually my posts are done in the spirit of devil's advocacy, and because the best way to discover the the truth is to put ideas to the test.

I wouldn't be here at all if libertarianism was not of interest to me. There are some points where I've been converted somewhat, and others where I've come to the conclusion that the libertarian position is weak.


The things that libertarians universally acknowledge as "not morally okay" are not agreements. You can't agree to be robbed or raped (both true, evil crimes, even to those wacky libertarians). If you do, it's not robbery or rape anymore; it's presents and sex, and those things aren't (or at least shouldn't be) prosecutable.

That's actually what I was saying earlier - in the libertarian sense, if two people agree of thier own free will to an arraingement it is a moral situation. crimethink was the one who disagreed with me, stating that a agreement could be immoral, it's just that libertarians don't care about that.

Although it's worth noting that blackmail/coersion is an voluntary agreement that most libertarians would not consider moral.

Scooby|7.11.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Dan, you ignorant slut.

How is a coerced "agreement" voluntary?

|7.11.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Person A agrees to pay Person B money. He doesn't have to do it.

|7.11.07 @ 1:36PM|#

I don't give a rat's ass who he sticks his dick in. He's a tool for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

There may be a morality issue in the ends justifying the means. His hypocrisy may not invalidate his politics, but if it makes him a less affective advocate, I'm happy to see him twist in the wind.

The Presidential Candidates|7.11.07 @ 1:38PM|#

I'm so tired of these people. Our country is so far behind where it should be. Conservatives are always wrong about everything, it's the very nature of a conservative.

anon.|7.11.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Acts that cause involuntary harm to others do not necessarily constitute the entirety of immoral acts. They merely constitute the entirety of immoral acts that the government is justified in prohibiting.

Why? Because government is not the morality police. Government is the harm police.

Scooby|7.11.07 @ 2:32PM|#

"Person A agrees to pay Person B money. He doesn't have to do it."

Ahhh. So armed robbery is voluntary. Just because someone points a gun at you and says he'll kill you if you don't give him your wallet doesn't mean you aren't giving up your wallet voluntarily.

Rape must be voluntary, as well, unless the "victim" is rendered unconcious before penetration. If the "victim" is rendered unconcious, then where's the harm- she doesn't even feel it. If she give up the booty just because some guy puts a knife at her throat, it means she wanted it.

I'm curious. How does it feel to be so stupid? Does it hurt, or is it more of a numb feeling?

|7.11.07 @ 3:12PM|#

crimethink was the one who disagreed with me, stating that a agreement could be immoral, it's just that libertarians don't care about that.

No Dan T., crimethink said that, although a libertarian may believe a given agreement between consenting adults to be immoral, that libertarian also believes that it's none of her damned business and it's certainly not the government's damned business.

It's simply, really. Stop trying so hard, you'll hurt yourself.

|7.12.07 @ 12:41AM|#

The things that libertarians universally acknowledge as "not morally okay" are not agreements. You can't agree to be robbed or raped (both true, evil crimes, even to those wacky libertarians). If you do, it's not robbery or rape anymore; it's presents and sex, and those things aren't (or at least shouldn't be) prosecutable.

That's actually what I was saying earlier - in the libertarian sense, if two people agree of thier own free will to an arraingement it is a moral situation. crimethink was the one who disagreed with me, stating that a agreement could be immoral, it's just that libertarians don't care about that.

Dan,
I was the Anonymous at 1:07*, and I'm tempted at first to take responsibility for the defective reasoning in this response from you, since it was my sloppy language that apparently precipitated it. But with that said, I'm not sure if you're making a good-faith error, or if you're being purposefully obtuse. If you'd do less rhetorical reaching for sarcastic throw-away lines, it would be easier to tell the difference.

The problem with your logic here is that you're conflating (and granted, I helped you conflate) ethical morality with legal permissibility. A libertarian can think that some things (drugs, sex, et cetera) are immoral while still maintaining that they should be legally permissable. A religious Libertarian could call marital infidelity immoral (and even groungs for being excluded from the relevant religious society) without wanting adulterers to suffer legal penalties. The cold shoulder and excommunication are social penalties, not legal ones. In other words, what Bronwyn said.

The difference is coercion. Rape and theft are coercive. Imprisonment and taxation are coercive (though perhaps not entirely morally equivalent with rape and theft). You not inviting people you think are immoral to parties is not coercive. Because I would bet that your next post will say "How is Excommunication not coercive?" And that answer should be obvious -- the other members of your club sewing circle religious group aren't coercing anyone when they decline to talk to you and hold meetings to which you aren't invited.



And finally, Dan, if you really think that any libertarians (or any court in the land, for that matter) would consider blackmail and coercion to be "voluntary agreements", then I can only assume that you're being obtuse on purpose. Please stop. Give us a challenge, would you please?


* I otherwise refrain from blog-posting during work hours, and posting anonymously made me feel marginally less guilty about it (although I'd contend that being on my lunch hour was a mitigating factor). I don't claim my guilt complex is reasonable, only that it need be mollified.

|7.12.07 @ 12:48AM|#

Crimethink is correct(sort of). But he's still a hypocrite by this definition.

Wikipedia-
In an act of hypocrisy the aim is to condemn another person or people, not to condemn an act. To preach against an act of which one is oneself guilty does not in itself constitute hypocrisy, even if one takes efforts to conceal one's behaviour. It becomes hypocrisy when it involves verbal attacks or demands of punishment against perpetrators of the act that one practices oneself. Hypocrisy can be, simply put, the pot calling the kettle black

William Pearson|7.12.07 @ 4:52PM|#

I just wanted to add to my comment, "Marriage between one man and one woman is a good idea." First, it's better than the clap (so I hear). And I couldn't imagine dealing with more than woman in my house. I couldn't live with a man because we're pigs.