SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

I think at this point it's generally seen as a waste of time and resources to bring criminal charges against someone or prosecute them for adultery.

From the legislature's point of view, I could see where it would be a bad PR move to repeal a law against adultery (although that's what's probably been done in most states). On the other hand, if someone were to actually get convicted for it, I could also see the courts declaring the law unconstitutional.

I remember there being talk about it in NY during the Spitzer thing. I don't know if NY still has the law on the books.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

I'm not sure, it's a possibility and doesn't sound completely far-fetched. It would be a different issue than the SC criminal code provision (probably based on something like intentional infliction of emotional distress), but I'd bet that suits like that happen all over the country.

ETA: Kevin's the resident family law expert, though, so he would know more about this than I would.

[DaemonSeid]

Bing search result...click here and then take your pick

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

Some states do allow a wife to sue the woman that has an affair with her husband. I believe NC still has such a law. I'm not sure about SC.

Even if SC has such a law, I suspect his wife probably would have no interest in suing this woman. Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children. There would be no real justice (or point) in suing the mistress.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children.

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

For some reason I just think everyone is really overreacting. I saw some interviews the media did with constituents who were saying that he left them "unattended."

I feel like others who have said the man is entitled to vacation time. And I don't believe for one minute that no one knew where he was. I think key members of his staff and his wife knew exactly where he was. I just think they didn't feel the need to tell the media and understandably so...

I agree on some level, in that I don't know that a person's faithfulness to their spouse has much bearing on their ability to govern. If your statement is accurate, that his higher-level staff knew where he was at all times and could get in touch with him at all times, then I think the story changes a little (at least with respect to his continuing fitness to be governor). However, I would think that his staff would have made that all perfectly clear when the story broke; unless they REALLY hate the guy, they would have told the media anything to make him look better to the media and general public.

I will say though that anyone who is a leader of an area, with that level of responsbility, needs to be easily contacted at a moment's notice. There could very well have been some sort of crisis, whether it be man-made or natural, and in those situations the Governor would be expected to step in and make decisions (regardless of any Constitutionally or legally-provided transfer of power to the Lt. Gov.). It's not the same level of responsibility as, say, the President, but it's high enough up and important enough that big decisions could arise at a moment's notice.

As for the media response - I think it's just a symptom of the over-sensationalization (if that's a word, which it probably isn't) of these types of events. Sanford is a prominent politician with some national following, and it's an easy way for the media to pick up readers/viewers/listeners/etc.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Even if SC has such a law, I suspect his wife probably would have no interest in suing this woman. Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children. There would be no real justice (or point) in suing the mistress.

I'd disagree, in that the position of a person within society doesn't necessarily mean that they are more or less affected by problems in their marriage. Whatever personality she project publically, this could very well have devastated her. I think it's tough to assume that anyone would be "satisfied" if their spouse was cheating on them, especially if the cheating became widely-known.

[JonoBN41]

The law is the law.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The law is the law.

That cut and dry, eh?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The law is the law.

Cool - we'll send you all those post-hoc speeding tickets, too.

There are MAJOR issues with enforceability etc.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I feel really bad for his wife. She's probably humiliated beyond belief. He said she's known for five months, but maybe she didn't tell him that...maybe she just got fed up with the media attention/embarrassment and told him once he returned. There are lots of women who don't tell their husbands they know about an affair, you know, and many do not divorce their husbands after an affair. If he did know she knew, they might have been going to counseling or trying to work on the marriage. I imagine she was probably devastated when she realized deep down that she did know where he had gone on Father's Day weekend, then to top it all off, the media came knocking on her door. Do you really expect her to "out" him on TV for all the world, and their kids, to see? To do so would likely mean an abrupt end to their marriage, and life as they know it, and maybe she just wasn't ready to make that decision so suddenly.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I feel really bad for his wife....I imagine she was probably devastated when she realized deep down that she did know where he had gone on Father's Day weekend, then to top it all off, the media came knocking on her door. Do you really expect her to "out" him on TV for all the world, and their kids, to see?

Jenny Sanford has released this statement. It sounds like she's got a good head on her shoulders (I can't believe I'm saying that since I'm rarely a fan of giving cheaters a second chance). This part of her statement really stood out to me:

"When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago. This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week."


Like PeppyGPhiB, I feel bad for Jenny and her sons.

[sdeason1]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The law is the law.

in which country or both? his political career would seem shot. is he human of course he is. he did not think he would get caught? what a dummy!
does anyone know what evil lurks in the hearts on the male species. say goodby gov and your life as an important person.

[DaemonSeid]

I think one of my questions is getting answered....whose money he spent to go and this looks like this was for last year's trip:


COLUMBIA, S.C. — One day after admitting an affair, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford reunited with his wife and sons and announced he will reimburse the state for a trip he took last year in which he met his Argentinean mistress.

Sanford said he "made a mistake" in seeing the woman last June during a trade mission to Brazil and Argentina. State records indicate he spent more than $8,000 in airfare, lodging and meals. The governor's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Thursday that Sanford will pay back the money spent in Argentina. Sawyer had said earlier that no state resources were used.

Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts called for an investigation. "That's like a bank robber getting caught and wanting to return the money," Knotts said. "He should strongly consider resigning."

Sanford resigned Wednesday as chairman of the Republican Governors Association but said he'd "let the chips fall where they may" otherwise. He spent Thursday at his family's beach house near Charleston after spending Father's Day weekend in Buenos Aires.

Knotts said the use of taxpayer money was too much to accept from a onetime presidential contender who made his name as a staunch fiscal conservative.

link