Gay Marriage | Mark Sanford | News | Republican Party | South Carolina

Anti-Gay South Carolina GOP Governor Sanford Admits to Affair

Sanford

South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford, a "family values" kind of guy who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, admitted to an extramarital affair today after nearly a week of speculation as to his whereabouts.

Not only does Sanford oppose same-sex marriage, he also opposes civil unions as well as gay adoptions. Do you think Sanford's four kids missed him when he skipped out on them for Father's Day last weekend because he was cheating on mommy?

As little as two weeks ago, Sanford told Joe Scarborough that the Republican Party should not shift its views on same-sex marriage.

Watch both clips, AFTER THE JUMP...

In its coverage, FOX News identified Sanford as a Democrat:

Sanforddem

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Buwahahahahahaha, another GoOPer 2012 Presidential favorite bites the dust. Bring on Palin!

    Stupid fucking breeders, the *nerve* of them to lecture anyone about morality.

    As for you, Marilyn, you're an idiot, full stop. Re: Studds, here's the age of consent law in Portugal: In 1945, an age of consent was set at 16, in line with heterosexual activities. It's also 16 in MA. So, Studds did nothing illegal. As for Sam Adams, you silly bint, haven't you read the news the last couple of days? HE WAS EXONERATED.

    So, really, shut the fuck up with your attempts at false equivalency.

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Jun 24, 2009 7:33:03 PM


  2. Wow! He's a governor, and as such was elected by a majority of the people in his state. Hmm, maybe the majority in his state cheat on their spouses too?

    ...and these are the same people who think gays are destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?! I think not, it's the Christians who are destroying their precious marriage sanctity, because to a Christian it's a whole lot easier to take the path of self-righteousness and martyrdom, and then shift the blame to the gays, than it is to live an honest and truthful life.

    Please,a Christian wouldn't know values let alone "family values" if they were force fed them.

    ...and this governor should be forced to resign. Of course, that probably won't happen. Instead, he'll get some media attention, a little 15 minutes of fame, a gentle slap on the wrist, and then be applauded for cheating on his wife by the same group of zealots who put him there.

    Hmm, wholesome Christian values.

    Posted by: D | Jun 24, 2009 8:21:23 PM


  3. hahahahahahahahahahahah........Take this religious bigots freaks..>YES, I might be hateful ....BUT your hate is stronger than mine...I'm just living my life with out judgement...not like yourseves. I CAN LOOK AT YOUR GOD STR8 IN THE EYE...and spit.

    Posted by: Bosie | Jun 24, 2009 9:07:50 PM


  4. Just can't stand the fact that FAUX NEWS did it again. This is the second time a cheating lying sack-o-shite was labelled (D) for democrat.

    Who the hell do they think they're fooling. Oh, that's right; Their hordes of idiotic morons who think FAUX NEWS and the GOP are the right and left hand of GOD.

    Jeebus, FAUX! Give us a break!

    Posted by: Roger Ramjett | Jun 24, 2009 9:23:59 PM


  5. Doesn't the Bible say that the punishment for adultery is a public stoning? I hope the residents of SC truly follow their religious beliefs.

    If not, they're hippocrites just like the governor.

    Posted by: Matt | Jun 24, 2009 9:34:28 PM


  6. Oh, Marilyn, you silly silly cow. Shall we all pitch in here to buy you a dictionary so you can look up the word "hypocrite"? I couldn't care less who the governor is "hiking" with on the "Appalachian Trail" in "Argentina"--his cheating business. (Though the lies are entertaining in their absurdity.) BUT, I do care that someone who is preaching so-called "family values" thinks he has a right to tell me what my family can look like (no kids for you gay folks, never mind that I was with my mistress on Father's Day), or who I can marry (no husband for you, even though I cheat on my wife). Family values preachers--and they're almost all Republicans, dear Marilyn--who can't live by their own rules shouldn't be making rules for others. That's hypocrisy. Get it now?

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 24, 2009 9:53:24 PM


  7. More than likely he was about to be outed by somebody for the affair and decided to come forward first to lesson the scandal. He doesn't sound too sorry for it from the tone of his announcement, only sorry he got caught if you ask me.

    Posted by: BRIAN | Jun 24, 2009 10:16:11 PM


  8. Why are these people morons?! Don't they realize that once people start to say, "One man one woman" people are on their past and their present?! Idiots!

    Posted by: Sean | Jun 25, 2009 12:28:45 AM


  9. So if we put loads of same-sex couples in proximity to these hypocrites, it will cause them to cheat on the stoopid women who married them... I say go for it!!! And a youbettcha for good measure... Wonder if it would work with the trainwreck from Walsilla?

    Posted by: Sean R | Jun 25, 2009 3:15:21 AM


  10. A few thoughts...

    Just because some people don't live up to the standard of what some have called "family values" doesn't mean that standard should be discarded. It means the people who don't live up to the standard should be discarded from public office.

    As I've said, I'm happy Sanford was exposed. I'd like to see all duplicitous men and women out of political office.

    Cardinal John Henry Newman spoke of the damage intemperate men do to the cause of the good when he wrote: "Others are so intemperate and intractable that there is no greater calamity for a good cause than that they should get hold of it."

    Bad men and women frequently assume a mask of virtue. Assailing all virtue as a sham and demanding that standards of virtue be expunged from the public square is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    It's a bit rich to go on and on about the purported hypocrisy of committing adultery while not supporting homosexual marriage (two subjects which are entirely unrelated to one another, by the way) while celebrating men like Gavin Newsom, David Paterson, and Antonio Villaraigosa, who also cheated on their wives. All of those men have been celebrated here on Towleroad for supporting homosexual marriage.

    Why the endorsements of men like those whose actions have demonstrated that they have no respect for the sanctity of marriage is considered a boon to the homosexual marriage movement remains a mystery to me.

    My comments about Brokeback Mountain being praised were also a reference to this site. I'd like to see evidence that this site didn't heap praise on that film. It was a daily staple for a ong time here. I even remember a photo of Andy Towle's expression of shock when the film didn't win best picture being posted. I couldn't care less if "Realness" thought it was a middling movie. The film was celebrated almost universally in homosexual blogs and media. It's your right to do so, but I can't help but feel that all the remarks about feeling sorry for Sanford's children ring a bit hollow. I don't remember lots of remarks about sympathy for Jack and Ennis'respective wives and children. Yes, it was only a movie, but it still seems extremely hypocritical to say that sort of adultery "for love" was understandable, but not Sanford's.

    I'm not excusing Sanford. Adultery is always reprehensible. Always. I say that as the adult child of an adulterer. Adultery breaks hearts, destroys families, an ruins lives. It's not something to celebrate or gloat about.

    I will compliment Towleroad's stance on Jim McGreevey. I remember reading a correct assessment of his (mostly successful) cynical use of his homosexuality as a diversionary tactic to escape further scrutiny over his extremely corrupt administration as was Governor of New Jersey. That was not te stance I saw in the majority of homosexual media coverage, but Towleroad had some integrity on that issue.

    But I will stand by my claim that most Democrats seem to gloat over Republican sex scandals, while almost invariably either minimizing, defending, supporting, or even reelecting their own philanderers.

    And you can go on and on about Fox putting a (D) next to Sanford's name, and I support that. It was shoddy journalism and mocking it will hopefully make them more accountable, but you should also be willing to own up to how the party affiliation of Democrats embroiled in scandals is pretty much buried deep in the story throughout most of the mainstream media, whereas Republican scandals generally have the (R) near the headline.

    And there is a double standard in how these scandals are covered.

    When Eliot Spitzer resigned, liberals were wringing their hands over the "tragedy" while clucking that he did it to himself. Democrats didn't gloat. They didn't dwell on the hypocrisy that Eliot Spitzer specialized in busting prostitution rings. It was mentioned, but dismissively.

    Meanwhile, any sex scandal even remotely connected with a Republican has Democrats promoting that Republican as the standard bearer of family values and taring them as a hypocrite. I'd never heard of Ted Haggard before his sex scandal, but he was made out to be the ultimate Republican insider, the Pope of the protestants, and (of course) the standard bearer of family values, when he was up for his two minutes of hate.

    Ted Kennedy is a letch, and he's celebrated as a champion by the Democrats. He's a serial adulterer, and that's true without even needing to mention Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne.

    Bill Clinton is another letch, but he was touted as a rock star over and over, until Obama's ascendency. He's still revered, despite his serial adultery and allegations made against him by several women of sexual harrassment and even one allegation of rape.

    Republican voters don't support adultery or adulterers, as a rule. Republicans are (generally) ashamed of Republican leaders who choose that path, but I don't see Republican pundits spinning the stories with the "everybody does it" excuse, like we saw with Clinton.

    Most Republicans embroiled in scandals leave office. Larry Criag and David Vitter are exceptions, but even there: Larry Craig is a pariah. He's considered a complete embarrassment. David Vitter's future is in jeopardy.

    Larry Craig was repeatedly accused of hypocrisy during his time to be the focus of the two minutes of hate. Ann Coulter famously replied, "Did Larry Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the 'hypocrisy'."

    Opposing homosexual marriage isn't always for religious reasons. Most politicians avoid citing their religious beliefs as reasons for their policy decisions, because that can alienate voters of differing faiths. Many politicians, especially celebrated Democrats like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and countless others, oppose homosexual marriage because they know it's not popular, as state ballots across the nation where homosexual marriage has lost in democratic elections have demonstrated. Why do you understand Obama is being expedient, but not a man like Larry Craig? And where were the allegations of "hypocrisy" over Bill Clinton from the gay community? He opposed homosexual marriage. He dropped homosexual rights like a hot potato when he saw it was hurting him politically. Obama will continually do the same, even if he does throw the gays a bone every once in a while.

    Thankfully, Towleroad is holding Obama accountable there, but will Towleroad be objective about Obama's other missteps, like his actions and inactions over what's going on in Iran?

    Those thugs kill homosexuals. Where is the pressure on Obama and the Democrat majority in congress there?

    Posted by: Marilyn | Jun 25, 2009 6:02:33 AM


  11. If you gay people weren't so self-absorbed, you'd acknowledge your culpability in Sanford's aventura amorosa. Remember that according to him, he had a chaste seven-year relationship with this woman when all of a sudden, you gays started getting married on the East Coast and the West. Poor Sanford, he could no longer maintain his fidelity to his wife, he had to go out and demonstrate his profound sense of heterosexuality in dramatic fashion with an unwise Latina. This is really, really all your fault, a homoplot to destroy the most passionate (in every sense of the word) homophobes. Take some responsibility, people!

    The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

    Posted by: Marie Burns | Jun 25, 2009 8:17:03 AM


  12. LOLOLOL The girl smiling in the background makes my day.

    Posted by: another matt | Jun 25, 2009 9:00:49 AM


  13. The girl smiling in the back is the best thing about this speech.

    Posted by: Andy | Jun 25, 2009 9:52:40 AM


  14. These guys are like those extreme religious a*holes, that are ready to judge and punish others they considerer lesser, and the God they worship isn't forgiving towards others, Gays, Blacks, Immigrants Legal and Illegal; then somehow when they (republicans) are caught cheating on their wives, soliciting sex in public places,etc... they somehow are forgiven by god. What a bunch a crap.

    Posted by: Kryanox | Jun 25, 2009 11:20:39 AM


  15. I know, Marilyn, it's terrible how some people make a distinction between reality and works of art. How could they not understand how depraved it is to applaud films where fictional characters show bad moral character! Next thing you know people will be praising Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina, and what kind of example would that set? No wonder Governor Sanford has strayed!

    And, though it's not the subject of this thread, I too am incredulous that Obama has not taken firmer action in Iran! I mean, we should get over there and start meddling so it can work out as well as Iraq did. We want the Iranians to love us as much as the Iraqis do. Where's Bush and Cheney when you need em, eh?

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 25, 2009 12:02:18 PM


  16. Another nail in the coffin of the anti-marriage equality bigots. Although I subscribe strongly to the "he who among you is without sin....etc.", I can be hopeful that this deflates once and for all the arguments by the DOMA people that somehow two men or two women marrying is going to harm a straight couple's marriage. Straights do a pretty good job on their own to harm the "institution" of marriage. Thanks to the people here who have pointed out that the good ol' governor was carefully NOT saying "she" and that he was gender-neutral. Ironically, "Testosterone" was on Logo this morning when I came home from work. Hmmm.......

    Posted by: mike | Jun 25, 2009 12:43:19 PM


  17. Somebody should interview the lady from the NOM organization and ask her what her thoughts are on this issue. Priceless! I bet you that she's in a same-sex affair too...This seems to be the trend with these hypocrites.

    Posted by: Christian Young | Jun 25, 2009 12:49:18 PM


  18. He should have stuck with the story about nude hiking in the Appalachians.

    Posted by: jmdrwac | Jun 25, 2009 1:55:56 PM


  19. The chickens are really coming home to roost for these disgusting Republican bigots. I so love how he's protecting traditional marriage, that is, if traditional marriage includes banging some broad on the side while you're still married to the mother of your four children. What morals! What a guy! What an example for all of us! Hypocrite fool. They'll all fall like this. They'll all be exposed. Can't wait!

    Posted by: Russ | Jun 25, 2009 3:03:26 PM


  20. Narcissists don't volunteer the usual personal information about themselves, so they may seem secretive or perhaps unusually reserved or very jealous of their privacy. All these things are true, but with the special narcissistic twist that, first, their real life isn't interesting to them so it doesn't occur to them that it would be interesting to anyone else and, second, since they have not yet been transfigured into the Star of the Universe, they're ashamed of their real life. They feel that their jobs, their friends and families, their homes and possessions aren't good enough for them, they deserve better.

    Posted by: Jesse Helms | Jun 25, 2009 3:35:31 PM


  21. It's very hard to have a simple, uncomplicated good time with a narcissist. Except for odd spells of heady euphoria unrelated to anything you can see, their affective range is mediocre-fake-normal to hell-on-Earth. They will sometimes lie low and be quiet, actually passive and dependent -- this is as good as it gets with narcissists. They are incapable of loving conduct towards anyone or anything, so they do not have the capacity for simple pleasure, beyond the satisfaction of bodily needs. There is only one way to please a narcissist (and it won't please you): that is to indulge their every whim, cater to their tiniest impulses, bend to their views on every little thing. There's only one way to get decent treatment from narcissists: keep your distance. They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you. When you attempt to get close to them in a normal way, they feel you are putting emotional pressure on them and they withdraw because you're too demanding. They can be positively fawning and solicitous as long as they're afraid of you, which is not most people's idea of a real fun relationship.

    Posted by: Jesse Helms | Jun 25, 2009 3:36:54 PM


  22. Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation. ^

    Narcissists are naive and vulnerable, pathetic really, no matter how arrogant and forceful their words or demeanor. They have pretty good reasons for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness, prevarications. This is the one I get suckered on. They are so out of touch with other people and what goes on around them that they are very susceptible to exploitation. On the other hand, they're so inattentive, and so disconnected from what other people are up to, that they don't recognize when someone is taking advantage of them. ^

    Narcissists are hostile and ferocious in reaction, but they are generally passive and lacking in initiative. They don't start stuff -- they don't reach out. Remember this when they turn and rend you! They will complain about the same things for years on end, but only rarely do anything to change what dissatisfies them so badly. ^

    Posted by: Jesse Helms | Jun 25, 2009 3:42:35 PM


  23. Gov. Sanford is right. Gay Marriage is a danger to "traditional" marriage. It made him cheat on his wife, and ruined the sactity of their marriage.

    Posted by: John | Jun 26, 2009 8:31:01 AM


  24. « 1 2 3

Post a comment







Trending


« «Arbitration Demands as New York Senate Adjourns Amid Gridlock« «