Mother Teresa might be allowed to oppose gay marriage. But those falling short of saintliness have forfeited their right to do so.
That, in a nutshell, is the logic that "Morning Joe" panelist John Ridley espoused on today's show. His comments came in the course of a dialogue with host Joe Scarborough in the wake of the public statement that Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and his wife made yesterday.
MORNING JOE PANELIST JOHN RIDLEY: What David Vitter could have done, what he should have done, what he did not do was apologize to gays, to homosexuals, to people he vilified through his stances in politics . . . when you try to insert into the Constitution bans on gay marriage . . . if they want to put in the Constitution that gays can't get married, if they really want to talk about sanctity of marriage, then put a ban on adultery.
MSNBC HOST JOE SCARBOROUGH: What you're suggesting is that if somebody commits adultery they can never be against gay marriage . . . I just don't know how you tie the two together and say because David Vitter had sex with a woman outside of his marriage, he must now support same-sex marriage . . . you have failed, fallen people in all lines of business, and for that to somehow equal a default position that we all must now support and embrace gay marriage seems to me to be a stretch.
Joe returned after a break to offer Ridley a partial concession.
SCARBOROUGH: I will agree with John Ridley, and John, it pains me to do this, I do think if this man has put out press releases blaming gay couples for the dissolution of heterosexual marriages, he actually does owe them an apology.
Come to think of it, wasn't Mother Teresa Albanian? Guess she doesn't get to vote against gay marriage either.
Personal note: for the record, I have libertarian inclinations on a number of issues. However, I oppose court mandates in such matters based on the "discovery" of constitutional rights that the framers never intended. My beef with Ridley is not so much his substantive stand as the illogic of claiming that those who stray somehow sacrifice their right to advocate positions in which they believe.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If memory serves, Ridley
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:07 ET by PeskyDaneIf memory serves, Ridley is usually a little more well thought out than this. However, it never fails to amuse me when people twist themselves into pretzel in order to convince themselves that their emotional reactions are actually an exercise in logic.
I agree with Ridley
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:33 ET by mcderek3000If you failed to represent morality via adultery, how can you criticise what should be and should not be moral? I believe the old term is "before you take the splinter out of someone else's eye ..." Therefore, what you would be doing would be hypocrisy.
We had a similar situation back in Australia. Tony Abbott, the leading person in the pro-life stance, (based on responsibility) was found to have 'knocked up' a woman in university and did not marry her. Now, how can this irresponsible person say that abortion is irresponsible? Thankfully, the pro-life group now has better representatives.
PS: What's all that crap about Mother Teresa and Albania? It doesn't make sense and it has no relevance whatsoever to the story at hand. Anyone who did not commit adultery can still make their statement. Stop sounding like it's some unachievable saintly moral standard to not be an adulterer.
You and I may simply end up
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:57 ET by PeskyDaneYou and I may simply end up agreeing to disagree here. Allowing pedophiles to establish a household with all the inherent rights and privileges that go with it is a matter of socio-political policy. I don't think a legislator is precluded from particpating in the debate on said policy because he committed adultery. Whether or not he keeps his seat is for the voters to decide.
I agree with you on one thing.
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 09:17 ET by mcderek3000Paedophillia is wrong because it causes mental and bodily harm upon others. However, it is an extreme example. Homosexuality does not cause harm upon others.
I do not believe that the legislator should be 'physically' excluded from a debate. I simply would advise people to 'exclude him' by not treating him as a credible source of opinion due to his hypocrisy.
Dirtiest little secret of
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 10:41 ET by PeskyDaneDirtiest little secret of the Left is the source of homosexuality and the myths surrounding it. One of the most deceptive mantras is that all gay men were born to heterosexual couples. While true on the surface, it distracts from the fact that homosexuals have had an extremely efficient and systematic way of proliferating themselves. Even the most perfunctory research will turn up volumes of data.
homosexuality
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 13:43 ET by TruthMongerhomosexuality absolutely does cause harm - just like peds - that's the problem...
the gay marriage crowd needs to get consistent and support the peds, necrophelia, beastiality, etc, etc, etc - otherwise THEY forfiet the right to criticize adulterous opponents of gay marriage as hypocrates...
Gay haters unite!
I hope you're joking
Wed, 07/18/2007 - 12:02 ET by Binxlyhow in the HELL does it cause harm?! Sure, some fringe-types in the homosexual community may believe homosexuality to be of a more 'enlightened position' (and wrongly so) and begin to promote homosexuality to impressionable minds as the preferable choice, but to say homosexuality as a whole is evil is just as incendiary and ludicrous as saying Christianity, or Islam, as a whole, causes harm, merely due to the extreme sects of both followings.
I ask you, if two men, or two women for that matter, are in a strictly monogamous relationship, are just like everyone else except for who they are unioned with, and decide to raise a child with good moral values and make no effort to interfere with his sexual identity one way or another (as no parent really should) then I ask you, how are they harmful?
Unless that comment was said in jest (which again it may have been) then I believe you are merely making assinine statements which are perpetuated by a more personal distaste for homosexuals. You don't have to like them. You don't have to converse with them in your free time. You don't even have to be nice to them. However it is *NOT* your place to judge them or tell them what they can and can't be.
"I believe the old term is
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 11:23 ET by mikej"I believe the old term is "before you take the splinter out of someone else's eye ..." Therefore, what you would be doing would be hypocrisy."
The very biblical reference that you give, found in Matthew 7:1-5, actually negates what you are arguing.
What is actually being taught is that it is hypocrisy while you have a beam sticking out of your own eye and trying to help someone else with a speck in theirs. But then the text goes on to say, removed the beam from your eye THEN you can see more clearly to help your brother remove the speck from his.
Hypocrisy is clearly condemned, but nowhere does it state that just because you were guilty of something before, can you then not have a voice in some other issue.
So I would assume that you would be against a former Alcoholic speaking to people about the dangers of alcohol?
That may be there Mike, but
Wed, 07/18/2007 - 12:11 ET by BinxlyThat may be there Mike, but this is why I avoid biblical quotes, it brings the conversation into a religious realm, and while many here think *all* conversations can be brought to that level, I politely disagree.
The problem here is not that Vitter is an adulterer and therefore null in his own opinions of gay marriage, but rather, that many object to gay marriage because they see the homosexual community as a permiscuous society with low moral fiber (which *is* true for a decent portion of that community.) Also, he has been outed to have had an affair very recently, so therefore, to anyone who is approaching the subject with no pre-determined bias, it *does* look very hypocritical. I could care less. he's entitled to his opinions, if you think, even after he has proven heterosexuals are prone to being permiscuous, that his argument holds weight, then by all means, thats your opinion, you're entitled to it. However, you can disagree in someone's logic to view this as hypocritical, but it doesn't make your's or their point the 100% correct answer. Opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one, and at some point, everyone's starts smelling. No one's opinions are infallible.
As for my take, I think Joe's buddy was way too pushy with the issue, but I myself find it laughable that a man claims homosexuality degrades the heterosexual marriages out there when he's proof that heterosexuals do that job plenty well on their own.
Ridley and Gay Marriage
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:25 ET by River CityRidley is off base. Once you get a speeding ticket do you lose your right to discuss drunk driving? He is goofy.
Most of the problems related to gay marriage and abortion could be resolved if the people of each state actually had a voice - a vote - like they are supposed to in these things. People feel they were robbed of their rights when courts come down with decisions that create rights that don't exist. But should we put the crime of murder up for a vote too? Things could get to the extreme? Just food for thought.
What other sins is Vitter
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:28 ET by Free ThinkerWhat other sins is Vitter now not allowed to voice his opinion about? Why stop with just homosexualality? Its good to know there are perfect people like Mr. Ridley to hold the rest of us accountable to God's standards. What an arrogant dope. Where does MSNBC find these people?
Strange logic
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:33 ET by GalvanicRidley certainly has an unusual train of logic.
I offer Mr. Ridley this one: If you've never served in the Armed Forces of the United States, you foreit your right to protest US wars.
Re: Strange logic
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:40 ET by mcderek3000The correct analogy: If you've never served in the Armed Forces of the United States, you forfeit your right to start US wars.
That would be the hypocrisy of sending other people off to fight a war while you did not make that sacrifice yourself.
Your description is not logical - if you did not experience a war, it would be perfectly consistent to wish that other people also did not experience it. There are examples of hypocritically criticising a war (eg: if that war provided the critic with peace), but this is not one of them.
This logic is irrefutable. That's why Ridley is so smart.
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 08:57 ET by acaiguanaThis logic is irrefutable. That's why Ridley is so smart.
Dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs.
All dogs are tables.
QED
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You're kidding right?
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 09:24 ET by PeskyDaneYou're kidding right? Regrettably, wars are fought because interests inevitably collide. Military forces are just one more arm of furthering and/or enforcing the aims of a nation state. There is nothing hypocritical about policy makers not lying in the trenches with the troops. "Diplomacy" is nothing less than threatening war until one side backs down. Heads of state rarely take to the field - that's why we romanticize Alexander and Caesar.
Word games
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 10:42 ET by Galvanicmcderek 3K: "Your description is not logical - if you did not experience a war, it would be perfectly consistent to wish that other people also did not experience it. There are examples of hypocritically criticising a war (eg: if that war provided the critic with peace), but this is not one of them."
Oh, I get it. So using your logic, if I have never experienced marriage, than it's perfectly okay for me to oppose same sex marriage, or all marriage for that matter.
Or how about: If I've never been mugged, than I should have no say about stronger law enforcement.
Gets kinda goofy, no?
The point is that Ridley makes abasolutely no sense.
If you've never served in
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 11:04 ET by Jack BauerWell that disqualifies Hillary Clinton from ever being President. Husein Obama too.
Of course, it does not disqualify President Bush who served in the Texas National Guard.
Surely you're are not infering the National Guard isn't part of the US military?
Howver the point is moot, as the US constitution does not mention your newly erected barrier for candidates to be POTUS. Sounds kinda fascistic to me, and unhealthy.
BDS really takes off when
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 11:09 ET by PeskyDaneBDS really takes off when you remind the libtards about our MBA - Jet-fighter Pilot President.
Forfeiture of Rights
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 13:01 ET by George2107Then FDR couldn't send troops to Europe to fight Hitler, Clinton couldn't send troops to Bosnia and Hillary can be president because she would not be qualified to be commander in chief of the armed forces!
"I oppose court mandates in
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 09:36 ET by sanskritg"I oppose court mandates in such matters based on the "discovery" of constitutional rights that the framers never intended."
We'd have to rewrite the Constitution to take into account all of the things the framers never intended/imagined/dreamed.
No, we'd just need to fill
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 10:44 ET by PeskyDaneNo, we'd just need to fill the judicial vacancies with constructionists.
Mr, Ridley, the straws
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 11:13 ET by Mike BrattonMr, Ridley, the straws called.
They'd appreciate it if you'd stop grasping at them.
I'll give you this much, though: Any sexual activity outside the traditional marriage relationship is wrong. The problem with your argument, Mr. Ridley--if you can call it an argument--is that the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, much like the term "conservative Democrat." And furthermore, a moral failure never disqualifies someone from admitting that a moral absolute is a moral absolute.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
The Flip-Flop
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 11:16 ET by Maverick313What makes me laugh is how Scarborough said that he couldn't see that by commiting adultery, you therefore forfeit your right to an opinion or belief concerning gay marriage. BUT after a break comes back on and says "I am sorry for having a differing opinion in the first part of the show... I have been forced to say that I do believe this man should apologize to all gays out there... because he fell from his "high horse" and is a human being. I love how liberals are allowed to flip-flop on issues OR be told what to say and how to feel and just take it all with a smile.
If you don't stand behind our troops; please feel free to stand in front of them!
maverick... I noticed
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 16:35 ET by bigtimermaverick...
I noticed that too with Scarborough and his flip-floppin' ways....
Some things never change on msnbc.
Senator Vitter has very right to his opinion and his vote....
The leftists made a big mistake thinking this was going to be huge anyway...also thinking they could force him to resign...are they crazy? (Wait a second, do not answer that...hehehhee)
After Clinton, nothing can be used by the leftists in comparison IMO.
Novel idea
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 12:02 ET by LionKingHow about this? If any elected or appointed government official commits an immoral act or a crime, they must immediately resign ... regardless of party affiliation. As an added bonus, the opposing party gets to provide the replacement. Let's see if the demolibs could survive that.
Liberals support free speech? Hardly.
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 12:04 ET by Dave R..the illogic of claiming that those who stray somehow sacrifice their right to advocate positions in which they believe.
It doesn't surpise me that a liberal would advocate squelching the rights of those they dislike or disagree with from speaking their minds on the issues of the day.
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Another angle to consider:
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 12:37 ET by BradzillaIf Ridley is stating that adulterers cannot oppose gay marriage, then he is implying that they must support it by default. He is then equating the morality of adultery with that of gay marriage, leaving them on the same moral end of the continuum. I wonder if he realizes the irony of this position.
...and does that mean that
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 15:44 ET by CapitalismRules...and does that mean that if a homosexual cheats on his/her wife/husband then he/she has to automatically disavow gay marriage?
By his established thought
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 16:18 ET by BradzillaBy his established thought process, it would at the very least force them to be silent to critics. But again, I don't think he really thought this through particularly well. Even so, let it be clear that I think adultery and solicitation of prostitutes are lame and immoral actions. I have a hard time sticking up for this Congressman in any capacity. You must admit that some moral authority of the individual is lost in situations like this, even if his alleged professions are sound. "He who is faithful in little..." that sort of thing.
absolutely, this is a
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 16:27 ET by CapitalismRulesabsolutely, this is a situation where a supposedly lucid, intelligent representative of democracy has once again put his foot in his mouth to praddle on about his own agenda and the way he feels the world should be. Perhaps if he spent more time focusing on the needs of his constituents rather than these diatribes.....
So then, if I cheat on my
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 15:36 ET by CapitalismRulesSo then, if I cheat on my wife, I have to feel that cheating is okay for me and everyone else? Adultery, if committed by me puts me in a default position to rubber stamp it for everyone else? Does a guy who used drugs and nearly kills himself HAVE to say that it's okay for someone else to do it even though he really wants to tell them not to?
Mark, I think he's
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 16:45 ET by LeonMark,
I think he's right. If a person argues that gay marriage is wrong b/c it violates the sanctity of marriage and they commit adultery (thus violating the sanctity of marriage) they are hypocrites.
As such, they lose their right to credibly comment on the sanctity of marriage.
I disagree...
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 22:04 ET by smfd227...I think it might actually give them more right. They have first hand knowledge of destroying that sanctity, and what it caused when they did...like the example above...recovering drug addicts don't want to see anyone go through what they lived through...and they truly are the only ones that know that hell.
On the other hand, I don't discount those that have never been addicted being able to make a decision against legalizing black tar herion.
"Pop culture is filth." - John Derbyshire
Semantics
Tue, 07/17/2007 - 23:41 ET by BradzillaI think your word credibility is the key. As conservatives, we should be cautious about discussions on limiting someone's right to speak. That's liberal talk.
Prostitutes. Wow, what a loser.
I think we're missing the point.
Wed, 07/18/2007 - 12:25 ET by BinxlyLeon didn't say he can't have his opinion or his vote, hell he's entitled to both. What he said is, *if* he opposes gay marriage cause it destroys the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, then he's a hypocrite because if he cared so much about marriage sanctity then why did he cheat? (btw homosexual marriage doesn't, and 99% of people who use God and say they want to 'save' these people is full of garbage, they simply are creeped out by homosexuals and its just their way of stopping it)
Again, he's not saying this man's opinion on the issue of gay marriage should be put on gag order, but if you don't think it's slightly hypocritcal to damn something because of its supposed effect, and creates that same effect himself, then you are blind, unknowingly or knowingly. I'd respect someone's opiniona hell of alot more if they said 'sure, its hypocritical, but *I* also think it denigrates heterosexual marriages and promotes the violation of its sanctity' rather than someone who just says 'its not hypocritical because he's correct, homosexuality ruins traditional marriages.' (which again in itself is just ludicrous)