SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I can't remember ever thinking about this before, but why would adultery being illegal be unconstitutional?

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

i think that may be generally true, but this case is a little different, I think. Sanford basically set up the media response by going AWOL. It was a story before the adultery part came out -- though as has been said, many of us guessed that it was coming. I still think the AWOL aspect is still the real public story, although it's not a juicy.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Wow. Stereotype much?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

I understand how it would APPEAR that it is a weighty assumption, but the truth of the matter is that many women in her position feel that way. The Kennedy wives are prime examples of women who had this mentality, especially Jacqueline. She often told women in similar positions the same thing.

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

With respect to my statement about his wife, my statement was not intended to imply that she may not be hurt or that she isn't affected by the problems in her marriage. My point was that I couldn't likely see her being interested in suing his mistress.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

i think that may be generally true, but this case is a little different, I think. Sanford basically set up the media response by going AWOL. It was a story before the adultery part came out -- though as has been said, many of us guessed that it was coming. I still think the AWOL aspect is still the real public story, although it's not a juicy.

The issue seems different to me because of the assumptions involved in legal marriage. In Lawrence, you have only the issue of private sexual behavior. In adultery cases, you have behavior which, likely, violates a legal contract, depending on what we assume that marriage means.

(If adultery has long been a reason to file for divorce, it would seem to violate the idea of marriage. Even if the spouse engaging in the adultery consents, it would seem that the other spouse would have to as well for the issue to boil down to the same thing as Lawrence vs. Texas. )

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

Right.

Everything else is a weighty assumption that can't be proven. Some would consider his wife a hero for standing strong. Others (like myself) would consider his wife an idiot for standing there. But, none of us know what's going on in their household.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The interesting thing about the press conference is that he talked about hurting the mistress before he mentioned hurting his wife and kids.

Bastard.

I didn't even think about that. Good point. Shows where his heart is.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

With respect to my statement about his wife, my statement was not intended to imply that she may not be hurt or that she isn't affected by the problems in her marriage. My point was that I couldn't likely see her being interested in suing his mistress.

Fair enough, I'd buy that.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

Exactly what I was referring to in my previous posts about Constitutionality, and probably shorter than what I would have posted. Thank you.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The issue seems different to me because of the assumptions involved in legal marriage. In Lawrence, you have only the issue of private sexual behavior. In adultery cases, you have behavior which, likely, violates a legal contract, depending on what we assume that marriage means.

How would it violate the legal contract of marriage, though?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Right.

Everything else is a weighty assumption that can't be proven. Some would consider his wife a hero for standing strong. Others (like myself) would consider his wife an idiot for standing there. But, none of us know what's going on in their household.

Is she really standing there? I didn't know that. One article I read said that she had asked him to leave and stop speaking to her two weeks ago. I got the impression that she was politely telling him to kick rocks.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

How would it violate the legal contract of marriage, though?

Isn't adultery still grounds for divorce in most states, or have we gone entirely no-fault in how we award divorces?

Sexual fidelity, it would seem to me, to be a default part of what you were agreeing to when you got married.

Marriage is weird when you start to think about it. What does it really mean these days other than receiving the state's blessing on your union, compelling your employer to offer whatever benefits it might offer, and filing taxes together?

How romantic.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The issue seems different to me because of the assumptions involved in legal marriage. In Lawrence, you have only the issue of private sexual behavior. In adultery cases, you have behavior which, likely, violates a legal contract, depending on what we assume that marriage means.

True, but I can't think of any other instance where breach (violation) of a contract is a criminal offense.

That's sort of where the rubber would hit the road: What is the state's legitimate interest in criminalizing conduct that otherwise may be protected by constitutional privacy rights? If a contract analysis is being applied, it is the non-breaching party who has the legitimate interest in seeking redress for the breach, not the government.

As for adultery vs. no-fault, in some states, you can't get alimony under no-fault. Adultery or some other fault will have to be shown if you're looking for anything beyond division of property or child support.

[UGAalum94]

Thanks for your answers, guys!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Is she really standing there? I didn't know that. One article I read said that she had asked him to leave and stop speaking to her two weeks ago. I got the impression that she was politely telling him to kick rocks.

Who knows. Maybe she is the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL said she is.

So if she really told him to kick rocks, how does that work with your theory about women of money, power, and prestige?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Who knows. Maybe she is the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL said she is.

So if she really told him to kick rocks, how does that work with your theory about women of money, power, and prestige?

lol She may be a ballbuster.

My theory about her being content with her money, power, and prestige was in reference to whether she might sue the mistress.

[FSUZeta]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The interesting thing about the press conference is that he talked about hurting the mistress before he mentioned hurting his wife and kids.

Bastard.

YES!! i noticed that too. Mentioning the wife and boys seemed almost an afterthought. What a bizarre press conference.

when i first heard that noone had seen hide nor hair of the governor for 7 days, i said to my husband,"mistress"!