Frank Lombard and Mark Sanford

[Long-time lurker, first-time commenter here.]

Ron -- a few thoughts:

1. Your analogy only holds if the Pimp-Creep is a prominent national political figure who has been using the issue of gay adoption to advance his political future; indeed, not only gay adoption, as such, but gay adoption because it is "best for the children". And, further: if the Pimp-Creep has publicly condemned other gay pimp-creeps in the past for pimping our their own adopted five-year-old children.

2. But more importantly, it doesn't even matter if your analogy holds or not. Most who follow the Sanford story will see it for what it is: yet another self-righteous, sanctimonious moralizer can walk-the-walk but not talk-the-talk. As such, he is rightly derided as a particularly rakish and hypocritical narcissist who was caught (all but literally) with his pants down. Accordingly, his views are discredited, if not to you, to pretty much everyone else. Splitting rhetorical hairs won't change that and and bit-by-bit the facade of bigotry is chipped away. It will inexorably collapse in due course.

Dreher, do you remember the who log/splinter in the eye thing? That's a real problem with heterosexual arguments against giving the children of gay parents the protection of marriage. Even if gay marriage would be a splinter in the eye of marriage (and that's a big "if"), heterosexual infidelity is a log in the eye.

Your adoption (non-)example would be an argument if sexual abuse of children were a result of gay adoption. But as anyone who deals with the criminal justice system will tell you, heterosexual parents often do horrible things to their children, too. Just the files that have crossed my desk are horrifying.

Mark Sandford (and Gingrich and Ensign and . . .) show that the conservative obsession with gay sex (and seemingly sex in general) is a smokescreen blocking some very real threats to heterosexual marriage. Given what heterosexuals are doing to the institution of marriage, the only reason left to so passionately oppose giving the children of gay parents the protections of marriage is, well, bigotry.

And given that Dreher uses Nazi analogies to refer to those who disagree with him on abortion, and "racism" to describe those who disagree with him on affirmative action, I guess he's changed his mind about whether the "bigotry" term is out of line in the marriage rights discussion.

"Given what heterosexuals are doing to the institution of marriage, the only reason left to so passionately oppose giving the children of gay parents the protections of marriage is, well, bigotry."

Like your suggestion that the actions of a tiny number of conservatives somehow give us an insight into the priorities and psychologies of all conservatives, that is a stunning non sequitur - one of several in your post.

I support SSM, but many of its proponents on these boards are extremely poor advocates for the cause; abusive, irrational, and endowed with a strong sense of their own moral superiority. It's not attractive.

Rod has made a good point here about the prevalence of silly ad hominems/straw man arguments on this board (I am beginning to wonder whether many commenters here actually understand the concept of an argumentative fallacy), and no-one has yet addressed it.

It is massively illogical to suggest that we can make valid inferences about the merits or otherwise of SSM based on Sanford's behaviour, but that the behaviour of Frank Lombard tells us nothing about the merits or otherwise of gay adoption. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, the Duke case IS relevant to the argument against gay adoption. It's merely one tiny data point, and doesn't add up to a persuasive argument without a lot more, but at least it's directly ON point.

By contrast, Mark Sanford's personal midlife crisis has no more relevance to marriage policy than it does to anything else he may have advocated but failed to live up to. If Sanford is on record saying that elected officials must be trustworthy and fully dedicated to their work on behalf of the people, are those things no longer true?

And the point of the last 2 paras in mh post are that it would be nice if opponents of same-sex marriage at least admitted that the boundaries do seem to be different, and that if a civil servant is willing to perform duties around divorce and remarriage but draws the line at same-sex marriage, there is a fair question to be asked about whether some sort of emotional element is at play.

PS I wonder if we might for once get through a thread on these boards without using the word "bigot" or any its derivatives.

Probably not, since Dreher uses the word, and worse, including in the headline of the post that was only four posts before this one. He and Erin use Nazi and Jim Crow analogies when discussing abortion, and in the last two days, Dreher used "racism" in a headline to describe support for affirmative action. Shortly after a doctor who performed abortions was murdered, Dreher said it was wrong, but then went on to

He sets the tone for his blog. I can see why a more calm discussion would be useful, but Dreher is basically calling for unilateral rhetorical disarmament.

This is another case of conservative words being ahead of their actions. If conservatives want liberals to drop claims of "bigotry" when it comes the conservative refusal to give kids of gay parents the protections of marriage, they need to drop Nazi, Jim Crow, and racism claims when it comes to abortion and affirmative action.

And when it comes to discussing what is truly a threat to marriage and what is not, heterosexual infidelity and serial marriages are both fair game. If A and B are serious and demonstrable threats to marriage, and if C is only a speculative threat at worse (and a benefit in many ways), it's fair to question the motives of people who focus so intensely on using the government to stop C.

Plus, as the numerous examples of heterosexual infidelity have shown, Christian religious conservatives do have a splinter/beam problem with their position. On any moral or religious issue, we have to ask whether rule is something people should encourage others to follow by persuasion, or whether it's something the government must enforce by force. Perhaps religious conservatives should have the modesty to focus on the beams in their own eyes, rather than using the power of government to extract the splinters from the eyes of others.

Even if gay marriage would be a splinter in the eye of marriage (and that's a big "if"), heterosexual infidelity is a log in the eye.

True enough, but if you already have a log in your eye, there is no reason to add a splinter on top of it. The solution is to remove the log, or at least start whittling it down, not to put more wood in your eye (or your brother's eye, for that matter).

Can anyone account for the difference in response?

Maybe they learned something.

public defender,

None of the 88 Duke professors -- ultra-liberals to a man and woman -- who accused the later exonerated Duke students of rape has ever apologized for doing so. Many of them have in fact reiterated their accusations. So, actually, no, I suspect that the left learned nothing at all from the previous Duke rape case, any more than it learned anything from, say, the Tawana Brawley case.

It does't mean they should no longer oppose same sex marriage, but it does make them hypocrites when they use their publicly-stated belief in "traditional" marriage, which they don't actually practice, to support their opposition.

Rod is right that Sanford's downfall does not make an argument FOR gay marriage any more than a scandal involving a gay marriage supporter (Dennis Kucinich, for example) would be an argument AGAINST gay marriage. I'd prefer to debate the matter on the issues, not on the morality of the advocates for either side.

That said, what I find vexing about these scandals is that they show how badly some straight people take for granted that which they would deny others. Sanford, Ensign, Craig, Gingrich, Vitter, Haggard... the list goes on.

If Sanford said, "I don't believe same-sex marriage should be legal, because I find it morally objectionable," why does it make him a hypocrite if he trashes his own marriage? Logically speaking, wouldn't he be a hypocrite if he went to Massachusetts and got married to a man? The case for or against same-sex marriage doesn't stand or fall based on the personal morality of the man making the case. If that were true, you all would be in the position of arguing that if there is a single gay divorce -- which there already have been -- then the case for gay marriage is fatally undermined by these homosexual "hypocrites."

Sanford is lots of things -- a cheat and a narcissist, for two -- but he is not a hypocrite. He hasn't even claimed that his affair was morally legitimate. He's said he did the wrong thing. If anyone who ever commits an act that goes against his own stated beliefs is therefore a "hypocrite," then we're all hypocrites, and the word has no meaning.

PD: We're basically asking the same question Jesus did.

The boundless self-regard on display here is too, too rich.

Sanford is lots of things -- a cheat and a narcissist, for two -- but he is not a hypocrite. He hasn't even claimed that his affair was morally legitimate.

Maybe you need to reread his letters to his mistress. He didn't seem to be wallowing in self loathing for his disordered conduct...

The man is a hypocrite. Period. The list of conservative moral scolds who dishonor their own marriages is amusingly long, and growing longer by the hour it would seem. Maybe that's why conservatives as a group are mocked for...hypocrisy. Maybe it's that old remove the log in your eye thing...

Celtic Dragon Critter,

Rod insists on a very narrow definition of hypocrite -- one who opposes a particular behavior but secretly approves of it. The behavior of the opponent is apparently of no consequence because, after all, he can always apologize for his failings. So, he's neither a financial hypocrite, even though he fought to keep the unemployed from getting improved benefits while spending state money adjusting a trade mission to add Argentina, nor a sexual hypocrite because he's really sorry (of course, he appears to be mostly sorry that he got caught) and thinks he did a bad thing (getting caught).

You know, from my perspective, the most salient feature of both Frank Lombard and Mark Sanford isn't whether they're gay or straight, conservative or liberal. It's that they're both men. If people like Rod and Your Name @ 8:24 want stereotypical generalizations to be drawn, they could draw some from that fact. The other salient fact is that, although this (alleged--not because I don't believe it, but because the case hasn't gone to court yet) heinous rape was committed by a gay-identified pedophile, there are a lot more rapes committed by heterosexually-identified pedophiles. It's hardly fair to put the emphasis on GAY when you're looking at a gay pedophile, but on PEDOPHILE when you're looking at a HETEROSEXUAL pedophile.

In any case, rather than fighting over the alleged superiority of heterosexual men, one might better spend one's time asking what's wrong with the community of men in general. Why is there so much abusive sexual behavior in their ranks, and why are they so inept in policing their own kind to prevent it? Why is there so much enabling and denial of behavior that makes life hell for women, children, and even for their fellow men when imprisoned? It's pretty crazy to act as if gay men are the only child rapists. If you looked at the incidence of child sexual abuse among heterosexually married couples in the same light, you'd have to start writing articles about banning marriage. The biggest determining factor for child rape is the presence of a man in the house--end of story. Sure, there are millions of fathers who don't rape their kids. And there are large numbers of gay fathers who don't rape their kids, either. If you really want to talk seriously about sexual abuse of children, you could start asking the hard questions. What's wrong with the way we think about masculinity? What's wrong with the way we talk about sex? But you're going to have to ask YOURSELVES those questions. Consistency, please.

Rod is correct that Sanford's hypocrisy on this doesn't invalidate either his own views or those who share his views on the "sanctity" of marriage.

True, but what it does is invalidate Sanford's credibility in participating in the discussion (as does Frank Lombard on the other side, BTW). That is what people are arguing about here. I think Rod's argument here is deliberately obtuse. It doesn't have much to do with the point he's trying to refute.

Rod

I love the South. Unlike the Yankee beasts up north, at least we know how to have a good sex scandal! The southern penchant for keeping up appearances plays a role here. But Rod your obsession with this issue of same sex marriage just won't go away. Like your other obsession, econapocalypse, it just keeps rearing its ugly head. I think you realize that social conservatives have lost this issue and are ultimately engaged in fighting rear guard action against something they know will defeat them. I tend to agree with some of the other posters in this combox that Sanford's behavior and the marital misbehavior of other conservatives deeply damages their arguments against same sex marriage. The issue of Lombard is one of pedophilia and child abuse. And rank hypocrisy as well. The sexual orientation of this appalling man is not the issue. You are conflating two very different situations

The hypocrisy of Sanford is multileveled and pervasive. Here we have sexual immorality, adultery, misuse of state funds by an alleged fiscal conservative etc ... This from a man who vocally and publicly stated that he opposed same sex marriage because of the damage it would do to traditional marriage. This sort of hypocrisy also led a man who opposed fiscal stimulus money from the Obama administration on the grounds of fiscal conservatism to use state money to support his fling?? What is the greatest argument against those who oppose same sex marriage on the basis that it will undermine traditional family structures?? The divorce rate among social conservatives themselves.

Your Name: The Lombard case is (as alleged) hideous. I'm appalled at the story. If he's guilty, "hypocrisy" is the absolute least of his problems. Is that enough of a ritual condemnation for you?

That said,

* Frank Lombard doesn't mean all gays are child molesters.

* Susan Smith doesn't mean all conservative southern christians are child-murdering racists.

* Josef Fritzl doesn't mean all Catholics are rapists who keep their daughters locked in their basements as sex slaves.

Perhaps after this thread, we can dispense with the practice of taking individual "monsters" and using their crimes to tar our opponents.

Many of us who support same-sex marriage have specifically noted that Sanford's infidelity doesn't represent all those who take a conservative view of marriage.

That said, there do seem to be an awful lot of prominent conservative spokesmen for "traditional values" who fail to live up to their own rhetoric. I don't think that invalidates the idea of "traditional values" but I would suggest that people on the right who are concerned about protecting the "institution of marriage" should refocus their concern on reducing adultery among their own ranks, rather than preventing a very small number of same-sex couples from getting married. Why does Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate in the US, rather than South Carolina or Mississippi?

But Brett, why is Sanford's credibility in the least bit relevant to anything?

Are you trying to say we shouldn't expect moral credibility from people participating in this discussion? Look, in these comboxes, the story of pro-SSM blogger Andrew Sullivan's past sexual activities is frequently brought up to discredit his authority on the subject. Even if his past doesn't entirely discredit his views (though many here have argued that previously) it does make him at least a little less trustworthy in the debate (though he has in his own way recovered from this scandal). Why should that not be the same for Mark Sanford? We can't disembody the argument from those who debate it.

quote: "Why does Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate in the US, rather than South Carolina or Mississippi?"

It's a bit simplistic to just cite divorce rates. Liberal states such as Massachusetts also tend to have lower rates of marriage and fertility in the first place as well as higher cohabitation rates. So in reality, the traditional family is in much worse shape in liberal states. After all, it's harder to fail at marriage (divorce) if you are less likely to bother with marriage in the first place.

rr

Rod: "If anyone who ever commits an act that goes against his own stated beliefs is therefore a "hypocrite," then we're all hypocrites, and the word has no meaning."

(Likewise with "sinner?") Again, it seems that thicker skulls are prevailing in this argument, so please understand that the fact of past hypocrisy is not erased by today's penitence. I admit, however, that there are two options here: Sanford either knew what he was doing was wrong and harmful but chose to do it anyway AND preach against it at the same time (this is definitional hypocrisy), or he truly believed that what he was doing was consonant his preaching (this is self-delusion). Understand that he did more than just believe one thing and do another--he cast himself as a moral beacon in a position of both high expectations (ideally) of ethical decorum AND he actively tried to legislate against and set himself apart from sinful activity in which he himself was a participant. It is not the failing that is at issue here per se; it is the proselytizing, the preaching, the pandering, and the pontificating against the failing as a political leader engaged in the same.

Also, Rod, you're conflating two arguments (much to your rhetorical advantage, I might add). One argument is that the case against SSM is undermined from a philosophical/moral perspective when opponents fail to protect the institution of marriage in their own lives. The other argument is that the case against SSM is undermined from a political/personal perspective when opponents fail to protect the institution of marriage in their own lives. Many here are arguing the latter; few (and please correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing the former.

Also, you are all bigots, so "bigots" now has no meaning.

Brett:

We certainly can, and often must, disembody the argument from those who make it, or else things get very muddled and start having to wade waist-deep in a morass of fallacies.

Take global warming. Here are some widely held beliefs among climate change sceptics:

1. Al Gore is a tedious douchebag
2. Greenies are humourless socialist types who hate capitalism
3. The proponents of Kyoto are economically illiterate
4. Climate science that questions AGW is suppressed

Now, these things may or may not be true, but even if they are all correct, it has no bearing on what kind of climate change is actually occurring, and how bad it will be.

You are right, it is an utterly illogical argument.

However the continued non-socially conservative behaviour of prominent social conservative politicians undermines the legitimacy of the political movement and that IS a problem that needs to be addressed. In order for the movement to be successful it is not enough to provide perfectly logical arguments, they need to be persuasive arguments made by persuasive figures.

Personally I find the arguments neither logical nor persuasive. Although I find the socially liberal arguments just as bad.

Sigaliris: "The biggest determining factor for child rape is the presence of a man in the house--end of story."

No, not end of story. By far the biggest determining factor for child murder and rape is the presence of a man in the house who is not the child's biological father. I don't know the figures for rape, but a study about murder I saw a while ago showed that a child is 70 times as likely to be murdered by its stepfather or mother's lover as by its father. On the other hand, it is only slightly more likely to be murdered by its father than its mother. If you were going to prioritise the prevention of anti-child violence and rape above all other concerns, the most rational approach would be to automatically give custody to fathers after divorce, unless the mother is prepared to vow celibacy until her children are adult. I don't actually advocate that policy, but I do think the horror the suggestion elicits in feminists is telling.

Even on the topic of sexual abuse of children, a recent expert in the Guardian (not noted for its antifeminist positions) estimated that about 20% of severe child sex abuse cases are committed by women. Two women who work for a nursery in England have recently been arrested for raping toddlers using objects, and filming their activities. However, as a matter of policy, airlines refuse to allow men to sit next to unrelated children.

Sigaliris: "The biggest determining factor for child rape is the presence of a man in the house--end of story."

No, not end of story. By far the biggest determining factor for child murder and rape is the presence of a man in the house who is not the child's biological father. I don't know the figures for rape, but a study about murder I saw a while ago showed that a child is 70 times as likely to be murdered by its stepfather or mother's lover as by its father. On the other hand, it is only slightly more likely to be murdered by its father than its mother. If you were going to prioritise the prevention of anti-child violence and rape above all other concerns, the most rational approach would be to automatically give custody to fathers after divorce, unless the mother is prepared to vow celibacy until her children are adult. I don't actually advocate that policy, but I do think the horror the suggestion elicits in feminists is telling.

Even on the topic of sexual abuse of children, a recent expert in the Guardian (not noted for its antifeminist positions) estimated that about 20% of severe child sex abuse cases are committed by women. Two women who work for a nursery in England have recently been arrested for raping toddlers using objects, and filming their activities. However, as a matter of policy, airlines refuse to allow men to sit next to unrelated children.

Michael,

Frank Lombard was just as actively politically and much more stridently so within the academic world and within the Episcopal Church -- two milieu with which I am familiar -- as Mark Sanford was active politically in his own milieu of electoral politics.

And, in any case, if you're going to throw out general principle as a consideration, it would seem that you could only fault Sanford if you lived in South Carolina and were specifically harmed by his policies.

I can assure you that there are many, many people in the academic world and within the Episcopal Church who have been harmed a great deal by the Frank Lombards of the world and their left-wing fundamentalist politics.

And that's of course to say nothing of the harm that Frank Lombard did to the child he raped and tried to prostitute.

Lombard is an utter hypocrite.

On the Stand Firm website, someone has posted a link to Lombard's wishlist at Amazon.com, which, in addition to numerous items of gay pornography, includes numerous liberal political tracts that sound from their titles like they could have been written by any of the liberals who post on these threads.

I'd bet a hundred bucks that Lombard had an Obama "O" on the bumper of his Prius.

He's far more emblematic of the left than Sanford is emblematic of the right, and far more of a hypocrite -- not that I'm any fan of Sanford's, who strikes me as not only a cad but also a flake.

Why does Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate in the US, rather than South Carolina or Mississippi?

Maybe because the residents of Massachusetts are less likely they to marry in the first place? Low marriage rates cause low divorce rates when measured on a per capita basis.

What Geoff G. said. All I'm saying is, Mark Sanford discredits himself and those who don't support SSM-- fairly or unfairly, logically or illogically. Whether you like it or not, or whether you think it's fair or not, it erodes that side of the discussion.
I suppose this is a particularly American thing. I can't imagine in, say, France, a married politician who supports traditional marriage but has a mistress on the side would be considered hypocritical, but that is how things tend to be handled here. It may not fit properly into a syllogism, but emotions and culture do not always easily do so.

Your Name at 12:00 is me. And, I just clicked on Frank Lombard's Amazon wish-list. I thought I was going to laff at it, but it's really no laughing matter. Gobsmacking is what it is.

As far as divorce rates in Massachusetts and Mississippi go, one also has to consider racial disparities, religious affiliation/observance, economic class, and so on, which is radically different in those two states. I suspect that, if you controlled for the white working class, the divorce rates would considerably narrow, but Mississippi would still be ahead. But, I am no statistician and do not have the data to make the correlation.

Disgusted in DC, you're right that comparisons across states are complicated by demographic differences.

My point is just that there's certainly no evidence for the typical southern conservative assumption that "northeastern liberal attitudes" = "no family values". Drawing conclusions from these statistics is tricky, but insofar as there's any evidence here, it runs in exactly the opposite direction. Marriage is no weaker, and possibly stronger, in socially liberal New England than in the Bible Belt.

Simon was kind enough to respond:

Geoff, that's only true if you define all sinful behavior as "hypocrisy." But that, of course, makes all of us hypocrites in one way or another.

And I would agree with you if this had been a one-time slip-up. If he'd gotten drunk at the office Christmas party and ended up fooling around with the secretary, then I think it would be fine to shrug our shoulders and talk about human frailty.

Or I would agree with you if he'd come forward with this of his own accord instead of being caught by an intrepid reporter that tracked him down at the Atlanta airport.

But he was a long-term, repeat offender. And it didn't come out until he was caught (I don't know about the circumstances under which his wife became aware of the affair, but my impression is that she caught him too).

That speaks to a deep hypocrisy, not simple sin.

Mael (and others tarring with a broad brush):

I agree with your logic 100%. And so, I have decided that it is appropriate to:

1) Treat all "good family people, good Christian people," as if they were all murdering bastards because this "good Christian father" "shot his wife, Bonnie, 56, and their 29-year-old son, William Ronald Carter Jr. He later shot Timothy Carter, 22, in the back and then again after the son begged for mercy, but only wounded him."

I think it's high time we held up Christians to this level of scrutiny. They've gotten away with their murdering ways for far too long. We are indeed making a mistake in allowing this opportunity to have a debate which could indeed result in the protection of many children.

2) Treat all youth pastors as if they were all child molesters because this fine Christian gentleman "admitted to conducting a sexual relationship with the victim at his home and in the parking lot of the East Peoria Walmart" (classy!).

I think it's high time we held up Christians to this level of scrutiny. They've gotten away with their molesting ways for far too long. We are indeed making a mistake in allowing this opportunity to have a debate which could indeed result in the protection of many children.

Thanks for really opening my eyes and completely missing the point of Rod's original post.

quote: "Drawing conclusions from these statistics is tricky, but insofar as there's any evidence here, it runs in exactly the opposite direction. Marriage is no weaker, and possibly stronger, in socially liberal New England than in the Bible Belt."

J,

I agree with you that the situation is complicated and it is difficult to make absolute claims. Besides the statistics, there are also cultural, racial and socio-economic factors that may be harder to measure with numbers. I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I've read the past few years from those who are the following is true:

1. On average, people in conservative states tend to marry more often and at an earlier age than those in liberal states.
2. The divorce rate is higher in conservative states than in liberal states.
3. The cohabitation rate is higher in liberal states than in conservative states. Moreover, non-traditional behavior/pairings such as cohabitation as well as homosexual behavior is more socially accepted in liberal states than conservative ones.

We can only come to tentative conclusions with this information. However, mine are the opposite of yours. What this tells me is that the likely scenario is that traditional family values are in trouble all over. Yet those in conservative states are more likely to still see them as the ideal than those in liberal states. So for example, those who might be weak marriage material in conservative states will go ahead and marry instead of cohabitate. They do, however, stand a greater chance of getting divorce. These same type people in liberal states will simply forgo marriage and live together, which explains both the lower divorce rate in liberal states and the higher cohabitation rate (*I don't think the break up rate for cohabitation is easy to measure, but from what I've read it is probably pretty high).

In other words, the likely picture is that more people try and fail at marriage in conservative states while more people in liberal states just don't even bother with marriage at all. This would mean that if anything marriage is indeed weaker in liberal states.

rr

Michael,

The only thing statement I can derive from your rhetorical gesticulation is that raping five-year old boys is a-ok as long as you are not a Republican elected official.

If you hold political power in some institution besides the state -- like a church or a school -- and if you are a Democrat instead of a Republican, or a liberal instead of a conservative, then what you do in the private life, in your sex life, is no one's concern but your own -- even if what you do with your political power within your church or within your school is to advocate for normalization of your sexual lifestyle.

One angle on the story that people need to recognize is that moves are presently afoot inside progressive or liberal circles within the Episcopal Church to push an agenda that includes normalization of pederasty, polygamy, and even bestiality. So there are certainly political implications to the Lombard story within the Episcopal world and within the broader world of mainline Protestantism, each denomination of which faces to one degree or another the same sort of challenge from liberals and progressives like Lombard as does the Episcopal Church.

Another angle people ought to recognize is how common advocacy for moral laissez-faire with regard to sexuality is in the academic world, including, perhaps especially, among administrators like Lombard.

If you attend a Protestant mainline church or if you or your children attend or are otherwise affiliated with a college or a university, it's quite likely that you've met someone who fits most of Frank Lombard's profile, and who pushes more or less the same sexual agenda that Lombard used to "justify" child rape.

So, actually, for most of us, the Lombard story is probably a far more resonant and far more significant tale of our times than the Sanford story is.

Folks, the divorce rate and drug abuse rate among protestant evangelicals is just has high as among secular people. The rates of child abuse including sexual and physical abuse is far higher among religious conservatives than it is among "secular" Americans. I am a mental health professional living in a town which is the national headquarters of a major pentacostalist denomination and home to their university which draws students in from all over the world. The southeastern Tennessee region I live in is dotted with churches on every corner, with preachers galore and it is the reddest of the red states. And the sexual abuse of children was for many years the highest in the nation per capita. I can't begin to tell you how hard it is for me to repair the damage. I can't begin to tell you how MANY men and women have told me that behind closed doors their deacon pastor and choir director parent did things that were never intended to see the light of day.

Rod what Frank Lombard did to his adopted child was horrible. However, I can tell you and some of the other posters in this combox that what he did is equaled or surpassed in socially conservative evangelical homes all the time. I do lots of crisis intervention work and see it almost every day. I am then left to pick up the pieces and help these poor people who have been abused. I have dealt with so many young men from evangelical; backgrounds who tell me they were the victims of incest. If you look at the statistics on child sexual abuse, you will find that the "child abuse belt" begins in Virginia, runs through the Carolinas through Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas.

Those regions which are socially and religiously the most conservative also have the highest rates of child sexual and physical abuse. The epidemiological data support this. Even when controlling for sociological factors such as poverty, religious conservativism appears to be associated with sexual crimes of all sort. I would estimate that 40% of the male and female students at the university in my town have experienced sexual abuse from a male family member, often the father or an uncle. Rod, to conflate this issue with same sex marriage ignores that reality that vast numbers of young men are sexually abused by their own fathers and uncles who are good social conservatives with impeccable public persona's. Left wing atheist gay men are far safer to have around children. The blindness behind your comments is astonishing.

sigaliris
July 1, 2009 9:59 AM

ROFLMAO! Occam's Razor cuts deep.

As Chris Rock famously observed "Men are dogs." No differentiation on the basis of sexual orientation, political philosophy, religiosity, national or ethnic origin. Men are dogs. Period.

The only question left is "What kind of dog is this man?" Lap dog or attack dog, sporting dog or working dog, whole or neutered?

The South has sweet tea, the North doesn't. Therefore the South is superior.

Thank you so very much, A Southern Therapist. I really appreciate your comment.

Rombald, I also appreciate your reference. Although you didn't link, I found Michele Elliott's book, partially available on googlebooks, an interesting resource. I only had time to skim the last article included in it. If you're arguing that child abuse by women must not be overlooked in our quest to protect children, I'm right there with you. However, when people use the relatively much smaller percentage of abuse by women to argue that it's all equal and therefore we should stop asking why there's so much abuse by men, I feel that perhaps they're more interested in redirecting attention away from the problem than they are in solving it for everyone. Similarly, the fact that men often abuse unrelated children does nothing to diminish the very large number of men who will abuse their own children or those of family members. I don't think you've done anything to disprove my point that most child abuse does take place within the heterosexual family.

Perhaps more directly relevant to the discussion here is a quote from the Guardian article I assume you were referring to, by Michele Elliott:

Paedophiles often try to claim their attraction to children is a sexual orientation, like homosexuality or bisexuality; it isn't – it is a learned deviant behaviour.

So it would appear that conservatives are confused when they try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

"Those regions which are socially and religiously the most conservative also have the highest rates of child sexual and physical abuse. The epidemiological data support this. Even when controlling for sociological factors such as poverty, religious conservativism appears to be associated with sexual crimes of all sort."

What "epidemiological data" are you referring to? And how do epidemiologists define and measure "religious conservatives."

"I would estimate that 40% of the male and female students at the university in my town have experienced sexual abuse from a male family member, often the father or an uncle."

Based upon, naturally, who has presented themselves at your door in your small town, which, in turn, you extrapolate to the rest of the country. Now that's a convincing epidemiological method!

Again, it may very well be true that pentecostals as a rule are far more likely to have twisted sexuals desires for small children than gay male atheists, but what you have presented so far just doesn't cut it.

LOL, Brian. You were right the first time. The South does have "sweat' tea. That's just one of the many reasons I don't want to live there.

Yours was funny, too, The Stupid Chris. Normally I wouldn't want to compare men with dogs. But it is true that if you see a dog that's dangerous, snapping, snarling, and biting, you ask yourself what happened to the dog to make it that way. Sometimes a whole breed unfairly gets a bad reputation because large numbers of them have been trained to behave badly. I'm not saying all men are dogs, I'm just asking what kind of training society as a whole is giving them, such that a significant minority of them think it's okay to use and abuse other people. It seems to me that Sanford and Lombard are both examples of this, in their separate ways.

I'm just asking what kind of training society as a whole is giving them, such that a significant minority of them think it's okay to use and abuse other people.

Consider that the answer may lie in nature, not nurture. No matter which culture one looks to, or which age of history, the pattern of use and abuse is fairly consistent. Tibetans are no more immune to this part of the human condition than ancient Greeks, Americans are no more immune than ancient Babylonians.

This is why mythology offers such a window into the soul; because human beings haven't significantly changed from pre-history to today. We have better technologies, to be sure, but our vices and virtues remain quite constant from age-to-age.

The Southophobes here -- when they are not prevaricating outright -- are neglecting to control for race, income, and education. Social pathology in the South and elsewhere occurs disproportionately in African-American and in white under-class communities. Most of the Republican-voting, churchgoing Southerners that Southophobes so love to hate are not African-American and not under-class. Those two groups -- the ones in which social pathology resides disproportionately -- tend to vote Democratic in the South, as they do everywhere else. What skews some Southern statistics for social pathology is the fact that the South has many, many more African-Americans and many, many more members of the white under-class than the lily-white and old-money rich-Northeast. But if one were to compare socioeconomic peers -- college-educated, middle-class Southern, Christian Republicans and college-educated, middle-class, Northern, secularist Democrats, one would find no significant differences in levels of social pathology, save perhaps for somewhat higher levels among the Northerners.

Your Name at 10:02 asks

"Does it [Lombard's raping and attempted prostituting of a five year old african american child] strike you as hypocrisy at least approaching or bearing some comparison to Sanford's own?"

It shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway since some conservatives insist on believing us liberals are SOOOO disordered in our moral priorities. No. I don't think Lombard's actions are AT ALL comparable to Sanford's. They are much, much, [insert a lot more muches here] worse.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Sanford was not also a hypocrite. Oh, and before anyone starts beating up another straw man, the fact that the child was african american has nothing to do with why Lombard's actions were so evil.

"But if one were to compare socioeconomic peers -- college-educated, middle-class Southern, Christian Republicans and college-educated, middle-class, Northern, secularist Democrats, one would find no significant differences in levels of social pathology, save perhaps for somewhat higher levels among the Northerners."

LOL, OK. Tell yourself that. "College education" down south usually means "Construction Management" degrees and the like - it's no surprise that the South has far fewer high quality universities than does its northern and western counterparts.

"So why didn't you just let the South secede?"

I dunno, maybe that whole "owning people" thing that your heroic forebears fought so hard to preserve.

"Oh, and unsurprisingly you are wrong about the South having a monopoly on social pathology."

No one said anything about monopolies. I said most strongly expressed, and that is very true.

"Liberal states such as those in the Northeast tend to have under replacement birth rates, which doesn't bode well for the future of the economy or entitlements such as Social Security."

The North also embraces immigration in a way the good, heroic, god-fearing, book-hating "Scots-Irish" twits of the South cannot comprehend. Simply true. Don't hold your breath.

"They also have higher rates of cohabitation, which is a strong indicator of the breakdown of the family."

No it isn't. I am calling that right now. The number one indicator of divorce is age of first marriage. It's no surprise that the South, where young people are encouraged by their "pastors" and/or forced into shotgun-like weddings, leads in this category.

"Moreover, they have the highest abortion rates. If brutally killing your children through abortion isn't child abuse and evidence of social pathology, I don't know what is."

Of course. Uhborshun. It's always ultimately about uhboreshun.

"The South is far from perfect. But you need to get off your high horse."

Not on one. We're simply better than you in just about every measureable category. And for the population growth nonsense, it's hysterical, since the pop growth largely comes from northerners moving to your pathetic third world-like states to build your economies for you.

Thanks for nothing, South. Oh, right, Tennessee Williams, the fry technique, busing riots. Whatever. That Bill Butler goon is a fine example of your genteel "culture". Enjoy!

"But if one were to compare socioeconomic peers -- college-educated, middle-class Southern, Christian Republicans and college-educated, middle-class, Northern, secularist Democrats, one would find no significant differences in levels of social pathology, save perhaps for somewhat higher levels among the Northerners."

LOL, OK. Tell yourself that. "College education" down south usually means "Construction Management" degrees and the like - it's no surprise that the South has far fewer high quality universities than does its northern and western counterparts.

"So why didn't you just let the South secede?"

I dunno, maybe that whole "owning people" thing that your heroic forebears fought so hard to preserve.

"Oh, and unsurprisingly you are wrong about the South having a monopoly on social pathology."

No one said anything about monopolies. I said most strongly expressed, and that is very true.

"Liberal states such as those in the Northeast tend to have under replacement birth rates, which doesn't bode well for the future of the economy or entitlements such as Social Security."

The North also embraces immigration in a way the good, heroic, god-fearing, book-hating "Scots-Irish" twits of the South cannot comprehend. Simply true. Don't hold your breath.

"They also have higher rates of cohabitation, which is a strong indicator of the breakdown of the family."

No it isn't. I am calling that right now. The number one indicator of divorce is age of first marriage. It's no surprise that the South, where young people are encouraged by their "pastors" and/or forced into shotgun-like weddings, leads in this category.

"Moreover, they have the highest abortion rates. If brutally killing your children through abortion isn't child abuse and evidence of social pathology, I don't know what is."

Of course. Uhborshun. It's always ultimately about uhboreshun.

"The South is far from perfect. But you need to get off your high horse."

Not on one. We're simply better than you in just about every measureable category. And for the population growth nonsense, it's hysterical, since the pop growth largely comes from northerners moving to your pathetic third world-like states to build your economies for you.

Thanks for nothing, South. Oh, right, Tennessee Williams, the fry technique, busing riots. Whatever.

quote: "Whatever the social pathology discussed may be, crime rates, divorce rates, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, illiteracy, poverty, obesity, you name it, it's all but assured that, controlling for all demographic variables, the bloc called the "South" (i.e. the Confederacy + Oklahoma and Kentucky) will as a whole display that pathology in far worse measure than any other region of the US. Over and over and over, it's the South that drags us all down."

Are you the same guy from a while back that when on and on about how Southerners are traitors and the scum of the earth? If so, it's a bit odd that you would berate us for being traitors because of secession in one breath and label us talk about the South "dragging us down" in the other. So why didn't you just let the South secede?
Also if the South is collectively a "welfare queen" yet remains poor and backward, what does that say about the effectiveness of government programs that are so dear to liberals? I guess Yankees such as yourself really aren't all that bright after all.

Oh, and unsurprisingly you are wrong about the South having a monopoly on social pathology. Liberal states such as those in the Northeast tend to have under replacement birth rates, which doesn't bode well for the future of the economy or entitlements such as Social Security. They also have higher rates of cohabitation, which is a strong indicator of the breakdown of the family. Moreover, they have the highest abortion rates. If brutally killing your children through abortion isn't child abuse and evidence of social pathology, I don't know what is. The South is far from perfect. But you need to get off your high horse.

rr

I think you realize that social conservatives have lost this issue and are ultimately engaged in fighting rear guard action

I volunteer!

"Well, Duke, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, and Emory come to mind immediately. Clearly your idea about "far fewer high quality universities" has no bearing in reality. Not that reality remotely interest you."

Proving your southern idiocy. I didn't say NO high quality schools, I said, "far fewer". Fewer =/= No. Try again. If you want to get into a list of which place has more high quality universities, then go ahead. You'll lose, and I think you know it.

"Except I'm from the foothills of the Appalachians, where slavery wasn't all that common. My home county voted against secession and it's quite likely that many (though certainly not all) of my forebears were Southern Unionists."

Blah blah blah. Typical Southern apologetics for Treason In Defense of Slavery. Blah blah blah "Not My Family", blah blah blah other rumblings (but zero actual!) secession, blah blah blah, not about slaves, and all the rest. Follow me, if you can, Southerner: the South seceded specifically to ensure the right to own slaves, doing so only after the candidate from the expressly antislavery party won the presidency, and went so far as to enshrine the right to own slaves in their (otherwise unremarkable) Constitution. Blah blah blah, not me, blah blah blah. Weak. And you know it (I think).

"Boy, you are incredibly ignorant of History. The North has had more immigration because historically it has had more industry. That and the North destroyed much of the South in the Civil War, which set back the South's economy for decades. But Northerners hardly embraced immigrants. Beginning with the rise of anti-Irish Nativism in the 1840s, almost all widespread anti-immigrant movements in this country, at least until the 1960s, originated in the North. From eugenics, to the 1920s KKK (which was huge in the North and anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic), to the 1920s anti-immigration laws, the North has led the way in anti-immigrant sentiment. And out West in places such as California, there was plenty of anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese and anti-Hispanic sentiment from the 1860s though the 1960s."

Blah blah blah the Irish, blah blah blah. Guess what, Southerner? The Klan was founded in the South and had, by far the most clout there as compared to anywhere else in the country. No comparison exists outside the Confederacy except for perhaps Indiana, which is kind of like the South in all the bad ways. You see, Southerner, the rest of us have learned to deal with people different from us; the Poles and Irish and Jews and Italians integrated in the North. The South had next to no immigration, for a reason.

"You do know that those who engage in cohabitation are much more likely to divorce if they actually marry don't you?"

You do realize that the region with the highest divorce rate is the SOUTH, right? It's your people (again), not the rest of us.

"If abortion is murder or in any way morally problematic then you are not."

Abortion has never been considered murder, even when it was banned everywhere throughout western history. And we are better than you. We're not great, it just isn't very hard to beat you at everything except dragging minorities to death behind our trucks.

"And if the North is so great, why are people actually LEAVING it?"

Because you need our help. We'll teach you to read. PS Indiana isn't much of representative of the North, but I can see why you were conmfortable there; as I mentioned, the Klan did quite well in Indiana alone among Northern states.

Overall, Northern states tend to be payer states: we pay for our own federal spending and a large fraction of yours as well, because your states have next-to-zero infrastructure, thanks to centuries of hatin on gubmint (for reasons that have nothing to do with 'libertarianism' and everything to do with 'keeping black people from having anything'), and we have to cover your shortfalls. Northern states, it follows, must have higher states taxes because WE DON'T GET HANDOUTS LIKE YOU DO. You get to keep state taxes low as well because of this. On top of that you bribe our businesses to relocate. You're theives on top of being fools.

In short, there is little good or worthy about the South. Mindless religious fanatics with an ancient grudge. You Lost. Get over it.

Or am I being unfair?

"The posts by really? reveal all one needs to know about why the North has been hemorrhaging population to the South for decades and decades now."

How can that be if the population of the North has been growing "for decades and decades." hemorrhaging population. ha. Perhaps there's more at work, besides Yankees coming to do your work for you.

Studies, one came out today by the way, indicate you're also far fatter, if that's any consolation.

And country music blows. Just my opinion. And I cannot stand that Paula Deen or her bacon wrapped deep fried butter logs "Yowl".

Jess' Sayin,

The North has its problems, especially rust belt states coping with the decline of industry (one of the main reasons Northerners go South, not some desire to help out Southerners as has been bizarrely suggested). But many people and places in the North are very nice. Besides living in Indiana, I've traveled widely to Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota (but maybe those don't count as real Northern states). I have some friends from Minnesota who are the nicest people you'll ever meet. If Minneapolis wasn't so darn cold I wouldn't mind living there. It's a great city and the rural parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin where I've been are beautiful. We can engage in dialogue and debate about the North vs. the South or liberal vs. conservative states. But let's not take things too far or exaggerate. Our nation is a complicated place and states and regions have various complicated problems as well as a number of good features. At any rate, Your Name is right. Really? is just a bigoted ignorant troll. I've never meet anyone from the North with such off the deep end views. No need to feed him any longer.

rr

The public is saying "too much information." Probably so but why? It seems that Gov. Sanford has no close friends in whom he can confide and he absolutely needs to talk about his affair, his soul mate etc.

Hopefully the public confessional is over and he can find a friend or a counselor or a minister to confide in. Meanwhile, he needs to remain governor and do the best that he can do for the state of South Carolina.

Late last night I mentioned one of the oddest remarks I'd heard during the whole Sanford affair thus far but couldn't find a link to it on Google. Well, AP's latest story actually does carry the quote:

In the AP interviews, Sanford laid out his thoughts and feelings in sometimes lurid or odd detail. For example: He said close Christian friends advised him to end the affair immediately and used graphic, figurative terms on how to do so — "the first step is, you shoot her. You put a bullet through her head," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVGOp2bl5_prbLYsoPOvD96f55bgD995UGEO0

According to the AP story, then, Sanford alleges that his fellow Christians used such lurid terms to describe how to end the affair (although the writer claims "the words were not meant literally"). It looks like the Governor is trying to besmirch as many innocent parties as possible in his spiral to oblivion, including not just his family but his religious community as well.

Does Mark Sanford's infidelity invalidate the argument against gay marriage? No.

But his infidelity denies him the credibility to make the argument.

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Or, to use the more judgmental version that wets your appetites.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I'd put "sin" in quotes since that which it entails is in the "eyes of the beholder" but that is besides the point.

You want to make the case against gay marriage or [heterosexual] "family values?" Fine. But be warned. If you yourself do not live up to that code, I'll look forward to your demise.

Any thinking person has been aware that "family values" was a bogus campaign slogan for the last 30 year, shamelessly exploited by the Republican party. Where were the conservative commentators (and yes as a liberal I regularly read this site), telling the Republicans to face reality. So Democrats take some pleasure in pointing out the hypocracy. So what?

"I'm pretty sure the idea is more that marriage is something defined by God or Civilization for a reason beyond individual happiness and that it predates the United States. So SSM violates the "sanctity of marriage" by introducing things unknown "impurities" to it."

How so? Here is what the Bible says about marriage when God creates Eve for Adam.

Genesis 2:18-25

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Why did God institute marriage? Because it was not good for one to be alone. Nothing about children. Nothing about procreation. Just companionship...a helper.

I don't think Sanfor'ds indiscretion invalidates opposition to gay marriage. That stance will fall not because one man (or many) couldn't uphold their marriage vows, but because it is groundless bigotry. It will fall because it has no loftier justification than slavery or Jim Crow laws.

Wow - this thread went off the rails - would like to agree if there is one situation where hanging seems justified it is sexual or physical abuse of a child - I do hope Lombard spends the rest of his life in jail.

Great post Geoff.

I suspect that if the Gov's mistress reads his "shoot her" comment - she for sure wil no longer have anything to do with him.

Homosexuality is an ancient defect, an abnormality, a sad abberration. The idea of knowingly placing children into the homes of people with this condition is foolishness and causes harm to the child. Sometimes the harm is less, sometimes the harm is more, but there is always some harm done. What this Lombard fellow did is hideous, but the fools who surrendered the child to him were...fools.

Has noone learned anything from the Catholic sex abuse scandal? Ideology trumps wisdom everytime, then everyone is shocked. Pathetic.

Additionally Genesis 1:27 states

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."

Your Name,

This is from the Book of Common Prayer....

"DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

"First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

"Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

"Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace."

Homosexuality is an ancient defect, an abnormality, a sad abberration.

Does this qualify as bigoted speech, by any chance Rod? I don't make a habit of referring to people I disagree with as aberrations, abnormal or defective.

Just wondering.

Sometimes the harm is less, sometimes the harm is more, but there is always some harm done.

Show me your anthropology or sociology degree and your field work with statistical analysis with heteronormative families in this culture. I dare you.

Wow - this thread went off the rails - would like to agree if there is one situation where hanging seems justified it is sexual or physical abuse of a child - I do hope Lombard spends the rest of his life in jail.

Keep in mind that allegations of sexual abuse of a child is the nuclear weapon of choice in nasty divorces. A good friend of mine was violently arrested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, incarcerated and general had life turned inside out because the teenage daughter of his new wife was being coached to make accusations by her father. It finally fell apart in court, and the judge actually apologized...but it doesn't always turn out that way. The accusation alone can ruin you, and it is easy to make and requires little or no proof other than lurid testimony.

"Thomas R, who cares what Genesis says? This isn't a theocracy" Gus

TR: Umm that post was directed to someone who had just quoted Genesis. It was germane to that discussion.

The most atheistic nations on Earth are likely Estonia and the Czech Republic. Do they have SSM? Does even France?

I, for one, don't agree with the author that these are analogous in the least. In the case of Mark Sanford, the discussion in an exercise in convoluted logic that attempts to discredit the political opinions of heterosexuals without having any impact in the real world. For children being adopted by known sexual deviants, however, the ramifications are far more dire. It is disingenuous to suggest that a person's proclivity for sexual deviancy has no implications with regards to their fitness as adoptive parents. The revelation that heterosexuals engaged in bestiality or S & M would certainly be considered germane to there adoption application. I suppose that many would argue that the "rights" of homosexuals to adopt should nevertheless be protected. I say, let's not lose sight of the consequences to real children when our society abandons them to the care of perverts and molesters. What about the right of the helpless ones?