Mark Sanford on Civil Rights

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 9:13 AM GMT
    No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)

    Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)

    Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

    Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_Civil_Rights.htm





  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 27, 2009 10:49 AM GMT
    What a renaissance guy icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 12:20 PM GMT
    well hopefully that is the end of his "moral" crusading.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 27, 2009 12:53 PM GMT
    Well my guess is that he had a "redefining" of some of his personal views
    based on his recent experience..... actually they still might be changing.
    Give him a few years and maybe he'll be talking about a changed philosophy.... (maybe not)....
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 27, 2009 12:57 PM GMT
    But then he won't be a republican
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 1:06 PM GMT
    who is he?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 1:22 PM GMT
    Michael_Mccarry saidwho is he?

    The current Republican governor of the state of South Carolina. Previously a member of the US House of Representatives, where, during the Clinton Presidency, he was very outspoken in demanding that Clinton resign for his moral failings in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and voted for his impeachment.

    Sanford went mysteriously missing for over 5 days last week, leaving his staff & family to believe he was hiking along the wooded Appalachian Trail in the US while the state was leaderless. But a newspaper reporter caught him at an airport in another state, returning from seeing his mistress in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    He now refuses to follow his own demands of President Clinton and resign. His wife knew about the affair, told him to break it off, and is now refusing to speak with him further. Though some state legislators are calling for his resignation, the majority are fellow Republicans, and are unlikely to impeach & remove him, unless evidence of gross criminal misconduct surfaces.

    Many in the US see this as further evidence of right-wing Republican hypocrisy, that allows them to preach to others how to behave, especially in matters concerning gays and traditional marriage, but who routinely undermine marriage with their own infidelities. Sanford joins a long list of disgraced Republican and right-wing politicians and Christian leaders, whose pattern seems to be that the more they campaign against gays & liberals, the worse their own personal & professional indiscretions are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 2:51 PM GMT
    I don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 3:15 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.

    They argue that homosexuality is immoral.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.


    The hypocracy is in that, at every turn, they talk about how gay people are an afront to the traditional family and the sanctity of marriage. They talk about family values and the protection of children being the most viable with a home consisting of a mother AND a father. The hypocracy they aspouse never deviates from that tenet. I guess for just over a year, Sanford conveniently forgot that tenet. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2009 4:10 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.
    OK, here's what the good gov. said about Bill Clinton during the impeachment era (from Charles Blow, NY Times) -

    Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton’s behavior “reprehensible” and said, “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally” to resign. “I come from the business side. ... If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” Remember that Mr. Sanford?

    But much more to your point, Gov Sanford took a vow to be with his wife "for better or worse" and he broke that vow. Same as Bill Clinton.

    But does the gov plan to resign? Nope.

    If that's not hypocrisy, then clearly I don't know what it is.
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Jun 28, 2009 1:59 AM GMT
    Very bluntly all those that commit adultry be they in a civil union,domestic partnership,or married should be punished as criminals and given time in prison in solitary confinement for the entire sentence.Those that are in public office should be tried in public court and granted no privlige b/c of they'er office.You would think that this line of thinking would come naturally to religous types that say marriage is a promice before God but I guess like all humans they can always pick what laws of God they follow
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 2:00 AM GMT
    Michael_Mccarry saidwho is he?



    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 2:16 AM GMT
    wyrln said
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.

    They argue that homosexuality is immoral.

    Sanford has also argued that gay marriage is the major threat to straight marriage and family values. And what is the threat to them of his own marital infidelity? Apparently not enough to resign in disgrace, as he urged of Bill Clinton. And Clinton did not abandon his elected post, in order to secretly fly out of the country to meet with a mistress without telling anyone.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jun 28, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    More on"hypocrisy defined" -- a good editorial in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    Excerpt from the end of the article:

    "Mark went back to work on Friday, giving his cabinet a lecture on personal responsibility and comparing himself to King David, who “fell mightily ... in very, very significant ways but then picked up the pieces and built from there.”

    Actually, the one thing David didn’t do after his adulterous fall was build, because he was forbidden by God to construct his dream temple in Jerusalem.

    Sanford should give his piety a rest. He told his cabinet that the Psalms taught him humility. (There’s a chance that a younger Argentine boyfriend of Maria’s also taught him humility, by jealously hacking into her e-mail account and leaking the governor’s missives.)

    Sanford can be truly humble only if he stops dictating to others, who also have desires and weaknesses, how to behave in their private lives.

    The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 3:11 PM GMT
    He fancies himself a King David? Can I say 'megalomaniac'? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 3:55 PM GMT
    AbFab1 saidMore on"hypocrisy defined" -- a good editorial in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    Excerpt from the end of the article:

    "Mark went back to work on Friday, giving his cabinet a lecture on personal responsibility and comparing himself to King David, who “fell mightily ... in very, very significant ways but then picked up the pieces and built from there.”

    Actually, the one thing David didn’t do after his adulterous fall was build, because he was forbidden by God to construct his dream temple in Jerusalem.

    Sanford should give his piety a rest. He told his cabinet that the Psalms taught him humility. (There’s a chance that a younger Argentine boyfriend of Maria’s also taught him humility, by jealously hacking into her e-mail account and leaking the governor’s missives.)

    Sanford can be truly humble only if he stops dictating to others, who also have desires and weaknesses, how to behave in their private lives.


    The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced."


    Would you vote republican if that happens? It looks like everybody here wants the Republican Party to change, but change to what? Change to be more democratic? While the democrats officially become socialists. Would you leave the democratic party then? and then what would the democratic party need to do to re-attract your vote. Weather you like it or not, 40% of this nation identifies itself conservative, and 20% or less liberal. If anything, the democrats should be moving back closer to the center because that 20% will not get them anywhere. And about being two-faced, I think we have a much bigger problem with the two face(ness) of the democrats and OBAMAS' repeated promises on so many issues (gay rights, taxing healthcare, torture, Iraq) that were never kept but were lies from the beginning just to get elected.

    Few examples:

    McCain 08: We may have to be in Iraq for another 100 years
    Pres Obama: 50+ thousand forces would have to stay in Iraq indefinitely

    Candidate Obama: Not a single penny will be raised on citizens making less than 250K
    Pres Obama: Open to taxing employee healthcare benefits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 3:59 PM GMT
    Democrats ARE centerist. I find them INCREDIBLY conservative and you suggestion of "Change to be more democratic? While the democrats officially become socialists" sounds perfect.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:02 PM GMT
    Can you define centrist please. I find it incredibly funny to read you find democrats conservatives. The world doesn't revolve around gay rights, get to your point on where is the conservatism in democrats. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:18 PM GMT
    This isn't about weather democrats are currently liberals or not. I already pointed out how Obama is governing in the opposite direction of his promises. What I'm saying is everyone here wants the Republican party to CENTER itself. I can only suppose that will mean you want the democrats to leave the center because you're a liberal. Which would mean, you want the democrats to vanish because clearly people want a centrist and not a far this or far that government. IN OTHER WORDS, why do all you liberals keep insisting the Republican party change if you believe their current policies will continue their destruction anyways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
    having a centerist party and a liberal party would give two viable options, rather than the far right loonyness of the present situation, which has people calling Obama a socialist. He´s nothing near a socialist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:32 PM GMT
    so why not having a centrist party and a conservative (right) party be viable? Do I not smell hypocrisy ^^^
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:42 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidso why not having a centrist party and a conservative (right) party be viable? Do I not smell hypocrisy ^^^


    no you don´t. The word is prejudice. I grew up in Thatcher´s Britain, lived in Bush´s USA, and also in post Pinochet Chile. I used to be right wing. Life has cured me of that.

    The current USA definition of "centrist" is actually what in the rest of the western world is seen as right wing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:48 PM GMT
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.


    hmmmmmm- you really don't see the hypocrisy or you are just making the remark to be funny or sarcastic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2009 4:57 PM GMT
    MadeNUSA said
    cruelsummer saidI don't see hypocrisy in Republicans and GAY RIGHTS unless it is one who was outspoken AGAINST gay rights and is privately gay. A straight Republican cheating with another WOMAN is not hypocrisy. There's a difference.


    hmmmmmm- you really don't see the hypocrisy or you are just making the remark to be funny or sarcastic?


    ok forget my question to you. i see by your comment later down that you were being serious. so here's the hypocrisy!

    If you are a conservative

    1: You adhere to what the bible says about family and marital relations

    2. The bible says adultery is an abomination and the man and woman who commits are to be stoned.

    3. The bible says that adulterers shall have their part in the lake of fire. It's right in the same verse that conservatives use to condemn gay people.

    4. You cannot condemn one set of people for what you think is wrong while you are doing something that's said to be just as wrong!

    4. he was one of the people who called for clinton's impeachment over getting a blow job.

    5. you don't take the moral high ground if you are living in not only a glass house but one without even the glass as walls so it now seems.

    6. here's the thing as well - the bible that conservatives love to use also say that hypocrites and liars will have their part in the lake of fire as well. right there with rest.

    7. so from all accounts - he's an adulterer, a liar , a hypocrite. That's what - like 3 strikes! Damn he's going to be roasted!!!!!!