« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


'Do as I say, not as I do' - that's not a 'family value,' Tony!

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images Picture-10-40In regards to David Vitter, the gay marriage ban-supporting Senator who has admitted to having had extra-marital affairs with a DC madam, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins has this to say:

Sin in The City

Homosexual newspapers, pornographer Larry Flynt and others who despise pro-family values are using Louisiana Senator David Vitter's admission that he hired an escort service and committed a "serious sin" as an opportunity to say that those who advocate for traditional moral values are hypocrites. Their statements leave me to conclude that the immoral behavior itself would be OK with them had the individual involved not taken a stand against immorality. Their hope, of course, is that Senator Vitter will be shamed into never picking up the pro-family banner again. I can't and won't defend David's behavior, even though he is a friend and a former colleague in the Louisiana legislature. ... I will, however, say that it is refreshing to see someone actually take responsibility for their "sin," a word we don't hear used anymore in this city. David represents a state that is overwhelmingly pro-life and where almost 80% of voters voted in favor of traditional marriage two years ago. His support of pro-family measures is simply a reflection of the voters he represents and of ideas that transcend politics. No doubt he will have to regain the trust of voters, as he has of his wife since these events occurred a few years ago. Part of regaining that trust will be maintaining his personal integrity and continuing to provide leadership on family and social issues even though the adversaries of the family will seize every opportunity to criticism
[sic] him.

And we would like to take a second and thank Tony for demonstrating further hyopcrisy. For had this been Barney Frank or Tammy Baldwin found to have been cheating on their life partners, there would not only be a repudiation of the "sin" of adultery, but Tony would UNDOUBTEDLY be using the situation to demonize the entire nature of gay relationships. There would be no pass given, and it would most certainly not be a situation where the lawmakers' behavior is presented as separate from their political dealings. Tony would be using the revelation to demonize their values across the board, both political and personal!

The thing is, by making it sound as if we gays and liberals want nothing more than to present all of those who hold "traditional moral values" as hypocrites, Tony is completely side-stepping the situation as it pertains to Sen. Vitter. We are talking about a man who has served as both a co-author and a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and has spoken in favor of the "sanctity of marriage" time and time again. Sorry, Tony, but when someone who sets "one man, one woman" marriage as the standard is found to have not been practicing what he preaches, those of us who have been hurt by his anti-gay actions have no choice but to call out the speciousness of his personal/political claims!

As for Tony's conclusion that liberals feel "the immoral behavior itself would be OK with them had the individual involved not taken a stand against immorality" -- well again, that's side-stepping the issue at hand! Everyone has their own views on what constitutes immorality and acceptable relationship practice. This writer personally feels that violating your monogamous commitment (especially in a for-pay capacity) is reprehensible, but that is just my personal opinion. Regardless of one's personal viewpoint, however, the issue remains that this is someone who has been found to have been saying one thing and living another. It would be the same situation if he spoke out in favor of closing the borders, yet was found to have undocumented workers on his staff; was boldly against the war, yet found to be profiting from our military presence in Iraq; or was a PRO-gay marriage advocate found to be secretly funneling cash to the Family Research Council's anti-marriage efforts. The vast majority of us who are sickened by the Vitter revelation have little to no interest in his personal life; we only have interest in his undeniably hypocritical politics!!!!!!! And actually, folks on both the "pro-family" and pro-gay side should feel slighted!

Tony, Sen. Vitter might have taken responsibility for his "sin." However, we will unapologetically continue to ask him how in good conscience he could have been so sanctimonious about the "institution of traditional marriage," when he was living in a marital situation that's well outside the lines of what most folks (gay, straight, or otherwise) would consider "traditional"! That's not because we are "adversaries of the family," but rather because we are advocates for all kinds of families!

Sin in The City [FRC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

He wrote "I will, however, say that it is refreshing to see someone actually take responsibility for their "sin," a word we don't hear used anymore in this city." What a laugh! and what a stretch of the imagination. The guy got CAUGHT! Before he was caught you never heard him admitting to his sin. What a crock of crap!

Posted by: Mark Demeter | Jul 12, 2007 11:30:35 AM

Not only did he commit adultary, he commited a crime. Hiring a prostitute for sex is an illegal act. He is a hypocrite and a criminal.
Are Senators not refered to as lawmakers? Why is a confessed criminal still being allowed to make laws?

Posted by: Dallascracker | Jul 12, 2007 12:46:07 PM

Actually, he's even worse than a hypocrite. He didn't own up to anything and only apologized when his phone number was outed by being published as part of the DC Madam's list! Awesome! So, by being confronted with concrete proof that he had done something bad, he can issue a statement and poof! Crimes washed away! Jesus saves!

Posted by: eric | Jul 12, 2007 1:16:14 PM

"Also in 1998, his wife gave as answer to a question of what would happen if her husband were to stray, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me. I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage."

Posted by: mark | Jul 12, 2007 6:12:40 PM

Instead of spending more time in his brand of family counseling, Vitters should be sent to Massachusetts to see what really family life looks like in same-sex married households. He needs a reality check. Enough with his hypocritical posturing.

Posted by: Courting Equality | Jul 13, 2007 12:53:15 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails