I give you two Senators:

One has admitted to having sex with a (female) prostitute, likely on a number of occasions. To date, no charges have been filed but he has publicly confessed to committing an illegal act.

The other has plead guilty to lewd conduct (with a male) in a Minneapolis Airport bathroom.

As the two events played out, the former walked away with nary a scratch politically. The latter has several members from both sides of the aisle calling for him to resign.

Questions for debate:
1) In your opinion, why are these two situations being treated differently? Should they be?

2) Should the sexual orientation of the crime matter when determining if a public official should resign if they are either convicted or confessed to a criminal act?

Author's note: I know this topic likely has a short fuse in its potential to become flammable. Please bear that in mind in responding and try to keep this civil. Thanks

They're being treated differently because one involves gay acts while the other involves heterosexual acts. But they aren't different at all to me. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and infidelity is infidelity. Netiher of which should be criminal.
Sexual orientation should have no bearing on the matter at all, but we'd be wise to bench the family values team and stop criminalizing human sexuality altogether.



I'm also thinking the GOP basically let Vitter slide since his seat could be taken by a Democrat if he resigned, where Craigs seat would be taken by a fellow Republican. Nice support there, huh?

Considering "moral" and 'hypocritical" elements, I tend to agree, dewey.

From a practical standpoint, I think Vitter has a better chance of surviving in Louisiana than Craig does in Idaho.

From Huey Long to Edwin Edwards, misconduct or alleged misconduct, hasn't been as much of a problem in Louisiana as it might be elsewhere. Tradition is important.

In your opinion, why are these two situations being treated differently? Should they be?

Heh - I inadvertently answered this in the Craig thread, so I won't go on about it at length here. Besides, the answer is very short, very simple, and obvious. The two situations are being treated differently because the governor of Idaho is a Republican and the governor of Louisiana is a Democrat. If Craig resigns, he's replaced by another Republican. So what? But if Vitter resigns - oh, my God! - we have another Democrat in Congress.

And, no - that is not a good reason for treating the situations differently. Unless, of course, one puts party politics ahead of personal responsibility, morality, and the law. I will, of course, make no blanket generalizations about the Republican Party - not because it would be unfair, but because it's too damned apparent.

Should the sexual orientation of the crime matter when determining if a public official should resign if they are either convicted of or confessed to a criminal act?

No, it shouldn't. Though, in this case, it doesn't. The reinforcement of the whole gay = promiscuous = toilet sex thing is just a sort of bonus.

They are being treated differently simply due to the fact that heterosexual indiscretions are more tolerable than homosexual ones, at least, in regards to the public arena of politics. We can tolerate a Bill Clinton, we can tolerate a Newt Gingrich, or a wife changing presidential upgrade-to-a-trophy-wife front runner, but other than Barney Frank, we can't handle it as a society if the person in question was gay. Frank is only tolerated in MA, the NE is an anomaly anyways. These incidences should not be treated separately. The GOP leadership is leaning towards a strained legalism argument over principle. Both of these guys ran with the "family values" card and voted against same sex marriage. They are both equal hypocrites in this regard. Given their record, I doubt we should lean on their understanding of "family values" in order to determine who can or can't marry.




It shouldn't matter, but it does as these guys have voted on some hot button, divisive issues. You live by the sword......