Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada has been forced to admit that he had an affair on his wife. Not only did he cheat on her with a staffer, that staffer was also cheating on her own husband - who was also an Ensign staffer. Ensign is a hardcore religious righter and was a prominent member of Promise Keepers. Gotta love those "family values." Best of all, as the Huffington Post reports, Ensign has a long history of being self-righteous at other politicians caught cheating:
And when it comes to this topic, Ensign's own record of denouncing the affairs and misconducts of other pols could come back to haunt him.During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president's conduct as "an embarrassing moment for the country."
'I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,' he said.
Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. "I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through," he was quoted saying at the time. "He has no credibility left," he added.
At the time, Ensign was in a tight Senate race with incumbent Harry Reid, an election he would ultimately end up losing. And he didn't shy away from trying to exploit the moral trip-ups in Clinton's personal life to benefit himself and the GOP.
"It could have a dramatic effect on Democrats like (President Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal) had on Republicans in 1974," he said, according to a local AP article from September 14, 1998.
In fact, not only did Ensign envision the Lewinksy affair as a political boon for Republicans, he actively made it an issue in his campaign against Reid. At one point during the campaign, Ensign accused his opponent of having a double standard when it came to politicians and sexual dalliances. Reid, he argued, had been much tougher on former Sen. Robert Packwood -- who resigned from the Senate under allegations of sexual harassment -- than he was with Clinton.
"Before there were hearings on Packwood, Reid said he would vote for his expulsion," Ensign declared, the day after calling for Clinton's resignation. "In 1998, he says we have to wait until all the facts come out on Clinton."
And of course, Ensign voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Because he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage from those evil gays. Is there anything better than seeing someone hoist on their own petard?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: chris | June 17, 2009 9:40 AM
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Well, unless they're trapped in a glass house an happen to have a stone. And when you think about it, trowing stones anywhere could hurt someone. So really it should be, "Don't throw stones... unless you're trapped in a glass house."
What were we talking about?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 17, 2009 9:41 AM
Because drugging and then raping the daughter of a close friend and political backer is exactly the same as what Clinton did.
In any case, since Ensign did not have an affair with the staffer husband, he probably gets a pass.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 17, 2009 9:41 AM
Abby - You carry on like that and you'll have some-one's eye out, then there will be tears before bedtime! (Plus all those nasty shards of sharp glass are a no-no.) Perhaps steer clear of all houses made of any fused, transparent or translucent silica polymer altogether....
Uh... How 'bout that ... local sports team? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2009 10:04 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 17, 2009 10:25 AM
Everything's OK; his wife knows all about it--since way back last year--and she forgives him.
I say it's just a danged good thing that the good Senaturd, in the interest of full disclosure copped to his infidelity after he had screwed the wife of his PAC's treasurer the one time only; oh wait that's not true. He copped to his infidelity after he had screwed her GOD knows how many times, but definitely right after the affair was concluded in August of 2008. NO, wait, he copped to infidelity when he was elected to Chair the Republican Policy Committee in the U.S. Senate. Oh, I'm sorry. It appears that he copped to infidelity when it became apparent that his choices were to do so, pay some hush money to his lovemuffin's hubby or get outed by that same hubby. What a standup fuckbag.
Thank GOD, he's keeping mawwiage safe from teh GAY.
Posted by: democommie | June 17, 2009 10:25 AM
Nice to see you're back in the saddle democommie! I was just thinking of you and sent you an email a mere couple of minutes ago.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 17, 2009 10:42 AM
See? All those gays getting married have indeed undermined the sanctity of traditional marriage. This is the latest proof!
Of course, now we gotta figure out specific a cause-and-effect link here; and that's gonna mean another great script for another bad porn movie...
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 10:44 AM
There's no question the guy's a hypocrite, and while a corrupt messenger naturally brings disrepute to his message, his hypocrisy isn't necessarily an argument against the positions he held. For example, if a strident campaigner against statutory rape committed this crime, we wouldn't use such hypocrisy as an argument that statutory rape should be legal. Similarly, I fail to see how this strengthens the argument for legal recognition of gay marriage, etc, except in the eyes of those who already held such a position in the first place.
Posted by: Daniel C. | June 17, 2009 11:06 AM
"See? All those gays getting married have indeed undermined the sanctity of traditional marriage. This is the latest proof!"
I think that you just won the thread Raging Bee
Posted by: GBM | June 17, 2009 11:08 AM
John Ensign is a veterinarian. Is "Neuter and Spay the Only Way"?
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/john-ensign-promise-keeper/
Posted by: Mike Licht | June 17, 2009 11:20 AM
Daniel C - IF I campaign against cruelty to animals (say) by saying "see what a paragon of virtue I am. My god's better than your god. If you don't believe you're all gonna be tortured forever, 'cuase my god's a merciful, loving and forgiving god. And my god can kick you god's butt, blindfolded! Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh.". But I spend my spare time cutting the ears off kittens just for kicks, and only come clean when forced to do so by a threat to my own well-being and status in the community. Wouldn't you think that would deserve contempt? Wouldn't that undermine the campaign to stop animal cruelty (say) because of how little those who supposedly care, don't, preferring the power and position?
Stopping animal cruelty (say) might be a moral position, but holding yourself up as an exemplar, engaging in the very thing your trying to prevent, then lying to save yourself, really, really isn't moral at all, is it? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2009 11:24 AM
Daniel C., you've just won the grand prize for missing the point. You can pick up your prize here.
No one is saying that infidelity is good. They're just saying that people like this need to shut the fuck up. Or, to be more genteel, they need to follow Mathew 7:3.
And nobody said that this assjacks' infidelity strengthens the argument for gay marriage. They're just mocking the claim of people like this that gay marriage will harm straight marriage--when they're the ones who are undermining the sanctity of marriage far more than letting two queers get married would.
Why don't you just sit back for a little bit and let the smart folks comment while you just read? Maybe you'll learn a little something.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 17, 2009 11:28 AM
It will all be ok. Ensign will pray real hard to jebus and claim to be forgiven. The GOP wil forgive him too, you-betcha. Beside all that it was the woman's fault.
Posted by: mr P | June 17, 2009 11:31 AM
No one is saying that infidelity is good. They're just saying that people like this need to shut the fuck up. Or, to be more genteel, they need to follow Mathew 7:3.
In addition to echoing what DJ and Hanley already said, I'll add that maybe we shouldn't be working ourselvs into such a froth over marital issues. Whatever harm is done by infidelity is mostly done to the wronged spouse (and sometimes the kids); but a) there's other factors causing harm to married couples and their kids, and b) the politicians who get into these scandals are likely involved in making policies that affect far more people then their own spouses and kids.
Besides, marital fidelity isn't always a great measure of one's overall character. FDR led the Allies to crush the Nazis, so his infidelity isn't worth mentioning; and George W. Bush got thousands of good people killed in a war that didn't have to be fought, so his fidelity to Laura doesn't mean shit in judging his character.
People who make a huge deal out of other people's private lives tend to do so because they either have nothing else to talk about, or are trying to divert attention away from more important moral issues where they don't have a leg to stand on. Every minute spent talking about sex scandals is one less minute devoted to the total failures of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 11:47 AM
mr p - Then he'll hold a press conference with his (mortified) wife in tow, declaring himself "Completely non-adulterous" no doubt - ;s DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2009 11:50 AM
Another thing about infidelity: it's not a bad thing in itself, it's mostly a symptom or result of something else bad in a relationship, the kind of thing right-wing moralists tend to ignore or fail to understand: such as unacknowledged sexual issues or needs, marrying for the wrong reasons, unrealistic expectations born of simplistic learned values, etc. Instead of nitpicking over hypocricy, maybe we should be asking questions about what causes infidelity and what we should really expect a marriage to be. Instead of attacking this or that right-winger for not obeying his own stated rules, maybe we should be asking whether those rules are really any good in themselves.
Posted by: RAging Bee | June 17, 2009 11:56 AM
Mr. p:
...Beside all that it was the woman's fault.
It was probably Mrs. Ensign's fault for being too naggy, pushy, and masculine. This is why John Edwards cheated on his wife Elizabeth, after all. Rush said it so it must be true.
Daniel C.:...his hypocrisy isn't necessarily an argument against the positions he held.
Well, it does make one re-examine where the real threats to the "sanctity of marriage" are coming from, though, right? And actually, it does weaken the argument against gay marriage, because it shows that adultery, even in famous cases, has failed to utterly destroy marriage and dissuade people from attempting to marry. So if adultery hasn't and can't "kill" straight marriage and the family and Western civilization despite its obvious popularity, then why worry that gay marriage will do all of these things?
Posted by: Adrienne | June 17, 2009 12:10 PM
Raging Bee:
You apparently have never been cheated on. I have. It was as traumatic as the sudden death of someone close. I know this because I have experienced both.
Perhaps you are thinking about "open" marriage or relationships. From what I know, these rarely work out as intended.
There is a lot known about infidelity, it's an interesting topic to research.
People in good, bad and indifferent relationships cheat.
Infidelity is not "caused by" problems in a marriage, it's caused by a decision by the cheater to cheat.
I agree, Ensign is a hypocrite and deserves scorn.
Posted by: anonymous for a reason | June 17, 2009 12:28 PM
Well, it appears that in addition to cheating on his wife, the senaturd is a liar. What's not to like if you're one of the base?
Michael Heath:
Thanks.
Posted by: democommie | June 17, 2009 12:36 PM
I thought Promise Keepers said that men are kings of their families and can basically do whatever the heck they want, as long as they continue to support their wives financially if they need it. I don't see how cheating goes against the Promise Keepers mentality.
No, cheating is generally caused by someone deciding to cheat. I've heard all the excuses, and they don't hold water. If the relationship is just that bad, then they should end the relationship now rather than waiting until it ends because of the affair. If the cheating is caused by a bad relationship, then the cheater is a wimp who is afraid to just end it. I've heard people say that they cheat because they really love their spouse/significant other, and don't want to hurt them with a break-up. Of course this is silly because an affair followed by break-up is even worse. And of course, if those people would lie and be hypocritical towards someone they love, I'd hate to see how badly they treat someone they don't claim to love.
Posted by: catgirl | June 17, 2009 12:38 PM
When I first saw the headline that Ensign admitted to cheating, I wondered male or female? I was kind of disappointed when I read the details. After all, about 12 years ago, there were rumors here in Nevada about Ensign going both ways.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 17, 2009 12:48 PM
I really dislike parachurch organizations like Promise Keepers.
Posted by: heddle | June 17, 2009 12:56 PM
If the relationship is just that bad, then they should end the relationship now rather than waiting until it ends because of the affair.
What if they have kids and don't want to break up a family arrangement? What if one or both partners simply can't afford to live on their own? What if one partner simply can't live without the other, due to financial circumstances, mental illness, ill health, or some other factor? What if the cheater really still loves his/her spouse, and doesn't WANT to break it up? I agree that people do choose to cheat, and do bear responsibility for their choices, but even so, the choices and situations are many times nowhere near as simple as some moralists seem to think they are. People are complex and contradictory, and so are our feelings and our relationships.
If the cheating is caused by a bad relationship, then the cheater is a wimp who is afraid to just end it.
And you know this is true of all cheaters...how? Or are you just taking one choice as "proof" of wimpiness?
You apparently have never been cheated on. I have. It was as traumatic as the sudden death of someone close. I know this because I have experienced both.
First, that's not true for all couples. I was cheated on too, and it was nowhere near as traumatic as my father's sudden and unexpected death. Second, even if people choose to cheat, did it ever occur to you that they might do so for a reason? Did it ever occur to you that the decision to cheat might have resulted from some other event or curcumstance that was also traumatic?
(See, I'm putting myself at a bit of a disadvantage here: I don't know enough about your personal life to judge who is at fault for the cheating, and I won't ask for all the pertinent details because it's not my business. Maybe your partner was pond-scum, or maybe you did something to hurt him/her, or maybe there was some serious ongoing misunderstanding between you two, and one of you snapped and fell off the wagon, at least temporarily. Maybe your relationship can still go on, maybe it can't. It's different for different couples.)
I'm not saying cheating is always justified; I'm saying it should not be viewed in a vacuum, unconnected to other events or curcumstances in a relationship. (We don't choose to fall in or out of love, we don't choose when to get horny, or for whom, so why should we automatically assume all incidents of cheating are solely the result of choice and controllable events? Why should we always assume that the evil of cheating began with the cheating itself?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 1:07 PM
Another thing about infidelity: it's not a bad thing in itself...
Horsesh*t.
I'm in full agreement with "Anonymous for a Reason" on this one. Although I have read at least one marriage counselor's opinion that the secret keeping as a result of infidelity is frequently more corrosive to the relationship than the infidelity itself.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 17, 2009 1:07 PM
catgirl - Yes and women who continually 'walk into doors', get thumped 'because they deserve it' or 'because they provoked it' should leave too, but the real world is more complicated than that.
If Ensign thinks men are 'the king of their families' then clearly there's a power imbalance there. This could be why the wife had to put up with her husband's inexcusable hypocritcy and lies*.
The real question, to my mind, is not 'why does adultery happen?", but rather, 'why is there such a unrealistic expectation of fidelity for both partners".
Just my US$0.018. -DINGO
___________________________
*I'm more focused on his behaviour in all this. Not only did he solemnly promise (in front of his god, a priest and both their families, to be faithful & loving toward his wife, but then he broke that oath and lied about it - while claiming to be a moral esample of fidelity and love to others!
I'd suggest the Celtic 'Triple Death' for him. Strangulation, throat-cutting and hit on the head with a [cobbler's or geologist's] hammer, before burial face-down in a bog with a wicker-work to hold him down [both to prevent his soul from escaping tormet].
Celts and Goths took 'oath-breaking' (and adultery) very seriously indeed!
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2009 1:11 PM
I've heard people say that they cheat because they really love their spouse/significant other, and don't want to hurt them with a break-up. Of course this is silly because an affair followed by break-up is even worse.
What about an affair that's NOT followed by a breakup? That does happen sometimes.
And of course, if those people would lie and be hypocritical towards someone they love, I'd hate to see how badly they treat someone they don't claim to love.
"Of course" my ass. See my reference to Bush Jr. above. Marital fidelity or infidelity as NEVER been a reliable measure of a person's overall character.
Besides, there are guys who are perfectly capable of being nice, decent and honest to everyone else while beating the crap out of their wives (I knew one such guy), so why can't a guy be nice, decent and honest while merely having extramarital sex?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Ensign is a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, which is a Pentecostal group founded by Aimee Semple McPherson, the first televangelist. So, yeah there's a good chance he can get some current televangelist to vouch for his "cure" when that happens.
Heddle: Promise Keepers is the live equivalent of The Purpose Driven Life, which starts with the claim that, "It's not about you," and then spends the next 39 Chapters explaining why it's all about you. Pure emotional feelgood drivel.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 17, 2009 1:26 PM
Conan the Barbarian said the best thing in life is:
Posted by: LightningRose | June 17, 2009 1:33 PM
According to Josh Marshall, Ensign and wife were separated at the time of the affair. It's still improper because he was her employer, of course. She was on his campaign staff, not the government payroll. I'd like to have the sexual harassment suit for this one.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 17, 2009 1:35 PM
Do you really believe that divorce is worse for kids than to have a cheating parent? Kids aren't as oblivious or naive as people think. I'd rather get a divorce than set the example for my kids that it's OK to treat your partner badly and they won't leave you as long as there are kids involved.
Honesty and openness are wonderful things. If they agree that it's best to live together but they can both have other partners, that's not cheating. It's an open relationship.
As I said before, if you will lie to your spouse and betray them and still continue to claim that you love them, then I'm afraid to see how badly you would treat someone you don't want to love. Of course, open relationships are completely different and not what I'm talking about at all.
This is a bad analogy. You have it all backwards. People can stop themselves from cheating, but they can't stop themselves from being the victim of physical abuse. People don't cheat because their partner is a bad spouse. They cheat because they are a bad spouse. People get hit because their partner is the bad spouse. When someone cheats, they are hurting the other person and not themselves. When someone is the victim of abuse, they are the one who is being hurt. There are many reasons why people cheat, but blaming it on a bad spouse or a bad relationship is just a flimsy excuse.
Posted by: catgirl | June 17, 2009 1:44 PM
kersham: thanks for the perspective. Ensign was already separated from his wife, therefore he wasn't really "cheating." And that's nowhere near as bad as having it off with a subordinate, which raises serious questions about possible abuse of power to take advantage of someone and create an unequal relationship.
LightningRose: you're not saying it right. It was "Crush enemies. Destroy their villages. See dem flee before da blade of my axe. And hear da lamentations of da women." And there was much rejoicing.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Maybe the two couples were having a foursome.
Anyway, the guy's a hypocritical ass who defends marriage by cheating on his wife with another man's wife. And the other man works for him so he can't complain or he gets fired. Sounds like a typical republican to me.
Posted by: Tom | June 17, 2009 1:47 PM
Do you really believe that divorce is worse for kids than to have a cheating parent?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Like I said, people are all different, and what's true for one family isn't necessarily true for their neighbors.
I'd rather get a divorce than set the example for my kids that it's OK to treat your partner badly and they won't leave you as long as there are kids involved.
Again, it's not always the same. What if the cheating spouse is treating the other properly and lovingly in all other respects, keeping up with all duties in the relationship, and both parents still want to work together to support their kids until they move out?
People don't cheat because their partner is a bad spouse. They cheat because they are a bad spouse.
How do you know this is always true? If (to take just one possible example) a man beats his wife up and treats her like crap, and she finds comfort with another guy, which is the "bad spouse?"
As I said before, if you will lie to your spouse and betray them...
You are repeating a point I've already addressed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 1:57 PM
Catgirl @ 21 you posted (in part):
"...cheating is generally caused by someone deciding to cheat. I've heard all the excuses, and they don't hold water. If the relationship is just that bad, then they should end the relationship now rather than waiting until it ends because of the affair."
To which I replied the partner who is being cheated on often can't leave because of many complicating factors. Some of these were posted by Raging Bee (324), and to this list I would add, what if the partner who cheated is a domineering, controlling, manipulative, two-faced, lying douche-bag who lives to be 'king/queen of their family'? (not that we know anyone like that, do we?) It's not as simple as you think to leave. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2009 2:05 PM
Kehrsam, I don't recall Bob Packwood being accused of rape (statutory or otherwise), but just a long habit of clumsy come-ons and groping. Are you maybe thinking of one-time Oregon governor Neil Goldschmidt?
I bring it up because, living in Oregon during both the Packwood and Clinton "affairs," I rather did think that we liberals had been caught out in a double standard.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 17, 2009 2:28 PM
If the parents are honest about it and decide that they can see other people, that's not the same thing as cheating; it's an open relationship.
I don't think it's good to set the example for your child that it's perfectly fine for them to lie to their spouse as long as they keep up all other "responsibilities" of the marriage.
There's a common myth that people cheat because their spouse just isn't good enough in some way. I think it's hurtful to believe that, and that makes the cheated-on spouse feel shame that they shouldn't have to.
If you claim to love your spouse but then you cheat on them and lie about it, I will not believe you. I've heard that one many times before and I don't buy it. If you simply like your spouse and want to stay with them, but you also want to get some on the side and you just don't care about your spouse's feeling, then you're selfish and not loving. Of course, open relationships are completely different. Just don't treat your spouse baldy and expect me to believe that you truly love them.
Posted by: catgirl | June 17, 2009 2:33 PM
I bet most cheating is as follows: I smiled; she, he or it, smiled back! Spouse is not around. Whoopie! Quicky adventure!
When caught cobble up bullshit explanation.
Alcohol frequently injested prior to first smiles.
Posted by: Jim | June 17, 2009 2:37 PM
<Jurassic Park>
HahaHAah! HahaHAah! HahaHAah!
</Jurassic Park>
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 17, 2009 2:38 PM
If the parents are honest about it and decide that they can see other people, that's not the same thing as cheating; it's an open relationship.
Not necessarily. For one thing, one incidence of infidelity may, or may not, be part of a longer-term pattern. For another, the line between occasional cheating and an open relationship is not always clear and shining; and there's lots of gray areas between the two extremes. Also, there's a difference between "it happened once, it was bad, but we're dealing with it and moving on" and "we've both agreed it's okay to keep on doing it." Whatever the case, recommending divorce as a blanket remedy is just as stupid as forbidding divorce under any circumstances.
Just don't treat your spouse baldy and expect me to believe that you truly love them.
And don't expect ME to take you seriously when you judge a relationship you're not a part of, by one single incident, when you don't even seem interested in fully understanding the incident, let alone the whole relationship.
My basic point here, is not that we can't judge the marital infidelity of others; my pont is that if we are to judge such things, we need to understand that there may be a relevant back-story to such things that a fair-minded judge would take into account. We also need to understand that a) there are limits to our ability to fully understand relationships of which we are not ourselves a part; and b) there are limits to our legitimate interest in judging other people's relationships.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 2:56 PM
... he had an affair on his wife.
That must have been rather uncomfortable for her, especially if there was much of that up-&-down stuff involved.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 17, 2009 3:06 PM
@Raging Bee: I think LightningRose got the quote right. But either way this version is my favorite.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 17, 2009 3:07 PM
Talking Points Memo reminds us of a ‘99 WaPo item:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 17, 2009 3:13 PM
Scott Hanley: My source for the story is pretty solid, a high-ranking staffer in a Senate GOP leadership office with knowledge of the Ethics Committee testimony, not just the Report. Had it just been the groping allegations the GOP leadership would not have forced him to resign.
The woman was the daughter of a close friend of Packwood's who was staying with him for a few nights while looking for a job in DC. She claimed that Packwood fixed her a "pink, fizzy drink" and that she passed out almost immediately, and that she was naked when she came to, being fondled by Packwood. Pretty classy, if true.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 17, 2009 3:21 PM
An "unspoken rule?" That's probably because a) their so-called faith hasn't prepared them to deal honestly with their own natures and desires; b) they can't bear to admit they're weak enough to need such a rule; c) their doctrine forbids them from honestly acknowledging their true natures, therefore they know that the minute they meet with temptation they'll cave to it (but of course they still want it); therefore d) they'll never actually man up and resolve the unresolved issues that would induce them to cheat, and will never be free from temptation. What a pathetic disaster their morality is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 3:28 PM
Similarly, I fail to see how this strengthens the argument for legal recognition of gay marriage, etc, except in the eyes of those who already held such a position in the first place.
It doesn't strengthen the argument, but it does remind us that self-righteous people are as full of hoo-haw as everybody else is. And it also reminds us that politicians are poseurs.
Posted by: 386sx | June 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Interesting. Of course, if this charge weren't common knowledge, than some of us libs would still be vulnerable to the charge of double standards.
As if most men wouldn't find that being a long-tenured Senator is enough by itself to get them laid ....
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 17, 2009 3:31 PM
Bloody Hell, why couldn't Packwood (that name takes on new meaning here) have just found a call-girl or hooker? Or, if he really enjoys playing with unconscious bodies, just get an inflatable doll? Any of those options, or shagging a sober consenting intern for that matter, would have been more honorable.
Hell, I've had some pretty skeevy ideas about a lot of female acquaintances, but I've never even seriously considered going half that far in my actions. I once got naked with a drunk chick, but when she passed out/fell asleep, it was over. Whatever happened to a sense of shame?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 3:39 PM
Clearly this proves the Republican definition of marriage.
Marriage = one man and one woman and whatever piece of ass the man can score on the side.
Posted by: Rob Jase | June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Clearly this proves the Republican definition of marriage...
And if they redefine marriage to include Democrats, that'll just ruin the sanctity of that hallowed institution; and sooner or later we'll be letting gays marry...and that'll lead to incest and polygamy and pedophilia and bestiality...
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 4:10 PM
Raging Bee @32:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos
Posted by: LightningRose | June 17, 2009 4:11 PM
Raging Bee:
AND pedophilabestiality, as well as Incestuous polygamy.
Posted by: democommie | June 17, 2009 4:54 PM
I don't know if any of you are aware of the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. There has been some resistance to the idea that "You can be good without God." But as the good senator has proven, a lot of Christians are not that good with God. In all seriousness, what is the point of this religion?
Posted by: Blue Nine | June 17, 2009 4:57 PM
That's actually an interesting thought, given that most of these folks would insist that marriage is a Judeo-Christian institution. Seems like "protecting marriage" would argue against allowing any non-Christian or non-Jewish marriages, even heterosexual unions.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 17, 2009 5:43 PM
Christianity: It's all about making hypocrites feel better about their rebellions, trying to please an ineffable being and hoping He actually cares about us, and receiving that which we can never deserve. Inevitably, some mistakes get made along the way. It's for ages three and up!
I seem to be hooked.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 17, 2009 5:56 PM
Kehrsam: Aimee Semple McPherson died in 1944. I didn't know that there were televangelists back then. I think her medium was radio.
Posted by: wrpd | June 17, 2009 7:06 PM
kehrsam wrote:.
It's for ages three and up!
Not if you're Catholic, it's not. If you're Catholic, or rather if your parents are and they want you to be too, it starts when they have you baptized as an infant.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 17, 2009 7:44 PM
LightningRose: I sit corrected. So where the Hell did I get my version? I could swear there was a bit about destroying villages and axe-blades. Could some of it have been abridged? I know that happened with "Star Trek," but that was done to make room for more commercials.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 9:21 PM
Abby: Your version is rally silly, in a kinda disturbing way. But then again, so were all the "Conan" movies, especially the first. Or maybe it was just me.
democommie: EEEWWW, GROSS, Heaven forefend!
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 17, 2009 9:37 PM
good sharing, thank you.
Posted by: ikariam | June 18, 2009 3:13 AM
Posted by: llewelly | June 18, 2009 8:51 AM
No Problem, Raging Bee @58, but I don't know where your version came from. The Bible, perhaps. ;)
I did a cut-and-paste from the CtB quotes page on IMBD, but did the youTube search to verify IMDB had it right.
Posted by: LightningRose | June 18, 2009 2:39 PM