Actually, now that I think of it, you have made promises to the community at large. And the community at large, in the agency of the judiciary and law enforcement arms of the government that the community has established, will be more than happy to force you to keep those promises.

Let’s say your girlfriend has health problems such that she runs up bills she cannot pay. You have no legal obligation to pay them; she is on her own unless you voluntarily pay for her bills. But if the same thing happens with your wife, you will be obligated to financially contribute to paying her bills before the State gets involved.

Same thing if your wife’s paycheck doesn’t cover her life expenses. If she applies for public aid, one of the first things they’ll ask her is whether she’s married. If she says “Yes”, she’s not going to get any aid if you have assets sufficient for the purpose.

By getting married, you have promised the community that you will be the primary guarantor for your spouse’s needs if she cannot provide for herself. The various threads on this blog calling for same-sex “marriage” have outlined the benefits granted to married couples by the State. Those benefits are not free - the community requires a price for them. Paying the price for them is your obligation and promise to the community.

If the MSM was so completely focused on protecting Democrats from sex scandals, why didn’t they protect Clinton? Or Gary Hart? Or the recent governor of New York? Or the former governor of Oregon (you may not have heard about that one, but it was a scandal here just a year or two ago)?

Overall, McCain has gotten very helpful coverage from the MSM, compared to Obama, who is treated more negatively.

He’s also gotten less attention, although that’s become more even in recent weeks My take on this is that the MSM has a double bias; they’re easier on McCain because they love him, but they also cover Obama more because Obama is what more viewers are more eager to see, and they’re more-or-less in the business of showing viewers what viewers want to see.

(That last sentence was a vast oversimplification, of course.)

The congregation is charged with doing, “… all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage…” There is no promise made by those being married to the congregation. Now, had a congregant made it a point to attempt to break up the Edwards’ marriage, that would have been breaking a promise.

I’ve officiated a few weddings in my time and, therefore, done a bit of research into marriage ceremonies. I don’t recall seeing any where the couple promises to the congregation that they’ll be faithful to each other. Usually they promise each other to be (sexually) faithful. Among other things.

Also, having been married once in a Jewish ceremony where the Rabbi went on and on and on about God, I don’t think that one needs to believe in God to be married in a religious ceremony that places importance on God. So, no, we don’t really know whether or not the Edwards’ believe in God. Especially since no mainstream politician vying for major office (or his or her spouse) can reasonably be expected to claim not to believe in God.

There seems to be a double standard here. No, I wouldn’t go with such a story without proof. But it’s the news media’s job to go get proof - to investigate. Where was the investigation here? Or did the MSM back off because they like John Edwards and his politics?

As far as I can tell, the Times sin in running that aspect of the McCain story is that they ran it without really being able to prove that it was true. That was wrong. But you’re now implying that the MSM should have run the Edwards story before they could prove it was true. Wouldn’t that have been wrong, too?

You are entitled to your opinion that Edwards only broke a promise to a figment of his imagination. But that’s not what matters in this context. What matters is what Edwards and his wife believe. They believe that there is a Supreme Being, and they believe that they made an oath to Him. That’s a hell of a commitment to break.

Nor do I think he made a promise to the community–what’s up with that? I may be married, but I sure as heck don’t owe promises to anyone else in town.

I’d guess that you didn’t get married in a church in a Christian service. I’d guess that Edwards did. Read through any Christian marriage service and you’ll see what I mean. Here are excerpts from the marriage ceremony from my own denomination, the Episcopal Church. I think you’ll find it reasonably typical of Christian matrimony services overall.

Then the Celebrant, facing the people and the persons to be married, with the woman to the right and the man to the left, addresses the congregation and says

Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony.

…

Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God.

Into this holy union N.N.. and N.N.. now come to be joined. If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now; or else for ever hold your peace.

Then the Celebrant says to the persons to be married

I require and charge you both, here in the presence of God, that if either of you know any reason why you may not be united in marriage lawfully, and in accordance with God’s Word, you do now confess it.

…

The Celebrant then addresses the congregation, saying

Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?

The community is asked to witness and bless the marriage. They are asked to give voice if they have any reason that the marriage should not move forward, and they are asked to assist the two in upholding their marriage. The couple is asked to confess to the community and God if they know of any reason why they should not be married. The community, made up at least of those present, are part of this ceremony and this commitment. The couple invites the community to witness and bless their marriage and makes a commitment to them as well as to God.

I may be married, but I sure as heck don’t owe promises to anyone else in town.

Again; it’s not an issue of what you feel your commitment is - it’s an issue of what commitment John Edwards made. And broke. It’s different than yours, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Now, we’re all human and all sinners.

Not me! I am not a sinner. Just FYI. Because, ya know, that’d require that there be someone to sin against, and all that, and since God doesn’t exist there’s no sin. Groovy! I have moral filings, sure, but I am happily sin-free :)

(so are you, incidentally, since there’s no God and all that.)

So I don’t mind much that Edwards broke a promise to a figment of his imagination. Nor do I think he made a promise to the community–what’s up with that? I may be married, but I sure as heck don’t owe promises to anyone else in town. I just think that cheating on your spouse is a generally scummy thing to do.

Of course, EVERYONE is scummy these days, particularly in politics. And so it’s a “lesser evil” strategy in most cases: i liked Clinton as a president over the other options, but I by no means like everything about clinton.

I was a huge Clinton fan. still am. but his infidelity was irrelevant because we ALREADY KNEW that he was a good president/

Well, THAT’S a matter subject to debate. However, once the news of his infidelities came out, how did it affect his effectiveness as President? Badly. His domestic agenda took a huge hit because of all the time and energy he had to expend in dealing with it - first by denying it and trying to cover it up, and then dealing with all the hearings, news stories, etc., etc., when his lies were uncovered.

You’d think that Edwards would have taken a lesson from this. But it seems that powerful people think that they have an entitlement to power, and consideration of such issues doesn’t seem to cause them to think “Time to bow out”. It’s human nature, I suppose.

I go along with Elizabeth Anne on this. John Edwards stood before the altar of God and made a promise to the Lord, his wife and the community as a whole. Then he violated it. Now, we’re all human and all sinners. If we look for a President without sin we’ll be looking a long time. So I don’t consider that in and of itself such an act disqualifies him from office. But it’s a factor, and so is how he dealt with it as far as within his family and with the community at large (how he dealt with it with the Lord is his business and in any case the Lord ain’t talkin’). Clinton lied like a thief to everyone and stuck to his lies until he was completely backed in a corner. Apparently Edwards handled it more honestly within his family. Good for him. But when it comes to the community (i.e., the electorate in general and the Democratic Party in particular) he was less than forthcoming. It’s valid to presume that this reflects how he would handle other mistakes and decisions.

It’s instructive to remember that Grover Cleveland got elected 100 years ago after acknowledging he had fathered an illegitimate child, in a day and age that was a hell of a lot more puritanical than the U.S. is now. Honesty really is the best policy.

Any marginal candidate has to be super intensely careful with anything that could remotely be considered controversial, and John Edwards sleeps with another woman and goes and runs against them for the white house?

Exactly.

What happened with you and Amanda? Your anger at her makes me wonder what she did; did she kick one of your pets or something?

But would I vote for him to be the Democratic party nominee for president? Heck no.

did edwards commit adultery? sure. is that a demonstration of moral turpitude, or at least unreliability or perhaps a creative notion of what honesty is? maybe. was big dog a lying son of a bitch? of course. was it hard to trust him after all of that? it was for me.

did he shove firecrackers up the asses of live frogs and laugh as he watched them explode? or snicker and make jokes about someone pleading for their life? or sanction torture? nope. somebody else we know did that. and what does that tell us about that particular individual’s moral center? and who has taken him to task for that? i mean to his face.

i just look around me at my fellow citizens these days and wonder - who the fuck are these people? and i thought I was insane, that I was the crazy one. it’s starting to feel like this whole country has turned into one giant snake pit.

i tell you what. even now, knowing what we know about edwards and his lying about fucking someone other than his wife - all of his signs of moral weakness, denial, failure to take responsibility - he’s still a better man than i, and i’d still vote for him for president.

of course, i’d rather have voted for his wife, but that wasn’t on the menu.

I don’t see how marital infidelity is different from anything else when making judgments about a candidate’s character, and I see character as a perfectly OK factor in deciding whether or not to endorse a candidate. It’s by no means the only or most important one, of course. but irrelevant? nope.

The line goes “well, generally speaking, someone who would _____ is not someone I would want to be president.”

Some folks here think “hey, marital infidelity, no problem.” But you still make character judgments, you just might not have that be yours.

Also, it’s interesting that for some the onus seems to be on the Democrats to be upstanding and moral. From my experience, it is the Republicans who run on platforms of “family morals” and godliness, so when they fall, their self-righteousness rightfully comes back to bite them on the ass. I haven’t really seen a Democrat running on a moral majority platform, but if he or she does, then the ramnifications should be the same as it is with any Republican. In biblical words, beware of the beam in your own eye instead of the mote in your neighbor’s and everything will be kopacetic.

(RIP Bernie Mac.)