It has been a long standing tradition that in the grooming of a presidential hopeful the perspective person be married well before running for office. Should marital status even be an issue?

No. The ablility to handle the issues and ability to run a nation should be the only thing that matters when voting for a president.

Though a first lady deals with some special groups (MADD for example) and charitable things, for 4 or 8 years, those things can wait for a prez who is married.

The job of president IMO should be decided based on ability, not a person's private life or marital status. It is perfectly reasonable to be an upstanding citizen and be unmarried.

Clearly it should not make any difference. However, in reality, I think it would make a difference to voters. I suspect that many people expect the President to fit the image of the archetypical clean-cut American family man. (And I use the word "man" deliberately.) I don't expect to see anyone but a white, married male become President during my lifetime.

(Those of you with a knowledge of history: How did Americans of the time view the unmarried status of James Buchanan?)

Here is one website which claims that there were rumors at the time that Buchanan was homosexual (although there is also strong evidence that he had romances with women.)

James Buchanan (and James A. Garfield)

Would an unmarried Presidential candidate face such rumors today?

Would an unmarried Presidential candidate face such rumors today?

I definitely think so. In a scenario where a candidate is gay. The scrutiny would be magnified 10 fold. Some how it is seems that it would be ok if a heterosexual person had many romances before running for office. Whereas a homosexual candidate would be viewed as promiscuous in an attempt to sway voters away.
A gay candidate would have to be as celibate as the Pope before even thinking about running. Perhaps that was over exaggerated. Maybe a long term relationship would be more acceptable in most eyes.

And, yes , private life should be private even in the White House but in light of today's media and willing viewers I don't think that is a possibility.

I voted yes.

If a person can maintain a long term relationship with another, it demonstrates countless good qualities. Commitment and compromise seem to come to mind.

Sure, one could be fully able to commit and compromise having not been married, but nothing shows off those skills more than past examples demonstrating your use of those skills.

Maybe this deserves a sister topic-- would you vote for a president who has been divorced three times, and is currently on their fourth marriage?

Mike

I voted yes also. Not only does it show stability, but the tabloids would have a field day with any woman he was seen with and of course the opportunity for scandals and all sorts of rumors would be greatly increased. I don't think being married should be a prerequisite, but I think any single person running for the presidency would have compounded issues.

I voted no, but as I think about it, should have said maybe. I think it would depend on WHY they had not married.

if they weren't married because they were princibly opposed to marriage (as I am) people might view them as too outside the mainstream to be president. if it is for religious reasons, people may forgive that. for example: dennis kucinch is not married, but is in a commited relationship. the reason he has not married (from what I gather) is that he is a catholic, and his girlfriend is a jew, and according to jewish law, a jewish women may only marry a jewish man. neither one fells the other should convert, but they do love each other. also, if the person isn't married because they hadn't found that "right" person, people wouldn't look down on that.

I voted yes.

I seriously DON'T want to be subject to the president's dating habits, whether gay or not. it would always dominate the news. That is just the way of the world and the media.

I would rather my president concentrate on the country and not on where his or her next love interest would be coming from. The potential for distraction would just be too great. A human being with that much power surrounded by adoring men or women and SINGLE or divorced? recipe for major distraction. Just look at Clinton. and HE WAS married. Whether or not we believe the publishing and concentration of HIS sex life was right or wrong, the man acted as if he were single and this nonsense took on a life of its own and put the country almost at a standstill. Not good.

Stability and focus is something I consider important qualities along with everything else when choosing the person I'd depend on the run the country.

Secondly, like a Priest who counsels married couples having not experienced married life, the president would also be making decisions that would affect families never him/herself having experienced family life.

But SoCaliente, that is like saying in a sense, the president's wife and children are a distraction. Anything taking the president's mind off his job is a distraction?



That is a contradiciton. A priest counsels married couples because that priest is able to remain objective and compassionate to both sides.

And doesn't anyone who is born have a family life; mother, father and maybe siblings?

And besides is there really a chance for a flaky lounge lizard in making it all the way to nomination status. I think not. Only someone who can demonstrate they have the determination and smarts to get there whether married or not.

Well, I put "I don't care", which I guess really should have been "No", given the question. I'm not a big believer in putting systems or restrictions in place based on potential conflicts of interest. If he/she is of good character and seems properly aligned on the issues and dedicated to making progress on them, marital status, to me, would be WAAAAYYYY down the list of important factors to me. On the other hand, if he/she seemed to want use the Presidential pulpit as their own personal dating game, well, that wouldn't go over well either.

Question--is it unpatriotic to turn down the President for a data?

Mrbluiis -

are you married? If not then you can't understand the difference in "distraction" between being in a married situation with the availability of sex and love ( I do hope I can say sex and not get warned again) and the need to constantly be looking for sex, love, whathaveyou. This is the distraction your average married couple doesn't have...unless of course they're the clintons.

Priests as marriage counselors, personally, just does not fly with me. A Rabbi...maybe. I would want someone to talk with me who had similar experiences. He would have more credibility in my eyes. <---whole other thread.

anywhich, I thought this question was based on personal preference. I just prefer a married president rather than not.

Hobbes -
depends on his politics.

It depends on who the president was. If it was Kennedy and you were Monroe, you were doing your patriotic duty. If it was Clinton and you were Lowinsky, HE was taking his presidential prerogative!

ok, that was a bad joke, I know.

I think a President should be married. After all, how else would he remember every little mistake he ever made without a wife around to "remind" him of them from time to time?

By the way, I am very happily married. And I do the dishes and the laundry.

Very true, very true. Could you imagine what the Reagan administration would have been like without Nancy?

I really don't think this CAN be debated constructively.

I mean, there's no law saying a single person couldn't be president and there shouldn't be. It's more of a social stigma of sorts and all the gossip that would go along with being the countries most eligible bachelor.

tis casual convo fodder fo sho.

It think it depends on why they're not married. I'm sure the American public would have no trouble voting for a widow/widower for example.

And I'll have to disagree with Victoria: I think the voters are ready, or almost ready, for a female, Jewish or black candidate If it's the right person. Other countries, most less progressive (in the true sense, not a euphemism for politically liberal) than the U.S. have already had female chief executives, and usually it's worked out well.