A lawsuit seeks to abolish Father's Day as discriminatory against women and celebrating rapists, child abusers, and wife beaters.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women advocacy groups have filed suit against the Bush Administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. During a press conference held after the filing of the lawsuit, Kim Gandy of NOW said, "the day clearly indicates that it is meant to recognize only fathers."…
Article comments
76 - Clavos
"How about serial adulterers"
We are, despite the protestations to the contrary of the christers and other religious types, a secular society.
Serial adultery and serial marriage and divorce are cultural norms in our society, practiced by a substantial portion of the population, and by all political persuasions.
Hell, it's not even noteworthy anymore.
Ask any secularist.
77 - RJ
I don't believe Newt or Rudy has ever been credibly accused of rape...or had to pay nearly a million dollars to get the plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit to shut up...
78 - MCH
No, but they're both adulterers, from the party of "Famliy Values"...
79 - Clavos
"No, but they're both adulterers"
Along with about 50% of all married Americans. BFD.
Adultery IS a family value; if you're not in a marriage, fucking isn't adultery, it's fornication. Or fun, if you're not repressed.
Maybe you'd like to stone 'em, emmy? Didn't realize you're moslem.
Yawn.
80 - MCH
"Along with about 50% of all married Americans. BFD."
- Clavvy
The difference being, of course, that 50% of all married Americans don't publicly espouse their own self-righteous morality while condemning others for the same indiscretions they're guilty of.
81 - Clavos
The hell they don't!
The 50% includes one hell of a lot of church goin', God-fearin', Bible thumpin' "Christians."
82 - RJ
No, but they're both adulterers, from the party of "Famliy [sic] Values"...
Well, I suppose the Democrats have an automatic advantage there, seeing as how they don't even pretend to care about "family values" and therefore can apparently act however they want. Adultery, sexual harassment, and possible rape included.
83 - sr
WHAT IS A BIBLE THUMPIN CHRISTIAN?
84 - MCH
"Well, I suppose the Democrats have an automatic advantage there, seeing as how they don't even pretend to care about "family values" and therefore can apparently act however they want."
So is that worse than Gingrich's phoney, hypocritical moral rhetoric? (see below) Although you do have a history of espousing empty words over action...
From the "Nussle and Fellow Adulterer, Newt Gingrich" web site:
"As a high school student, Newt seduced his geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, who he later married after knocking her up. The affair included night time romps in the back of the car until they got busted. While still married to Jackie, Newt hooked up with Anne Manning in D.C. and engaged in oral sex, which Newt later claimed wasn’t sex because oral sex doesn’t count. This was eventually coined “the Newt Defense.” Gingrich later hooked up with a younger woman, Marianne, and had an adulterous affair with her until he divorced Jackie, after confronting her in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted they discuss the divorce terms he was seeking."
85 - John Bambenek
Ahh yes, the typical relativist attack, there is no such thing as morality because we can find someone who defends it is an apparent hypocrit.
Newt is a politician not a moral theologian. And quite frankly what he does or does not do has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what objective moral norms are any more than they have a bearing on the theory of gravity.
86 - sr
"CIGARS, ANYONE?"
87 - Dr Dreadful
Newt is a politician not a moral theologian.
Fine. Then let him stick to politicking and steer clear of the moralizing.
88 - RJ
Newt stood up for family values, but he is a disgusting hypocrite for acting in a manner inconsistent with those family values. Correct?
BJ Clinton never stood up for family values. So when he acted in a manner inconsistent with family values, it was not unexpected, and he wasn't called a hypocrite. Correct?
It's interesting to note that the bar is set higher for those politicians who support ethical and moral behavior, than it is for politicians who we expect to be unethical and amoral...
(Of course, Newt never paid nearly a million dollars to silence a woman who accused him of sexual harassment. And Newt was never credibly charged with rape.)
89 - Arch Conservative
MCH....you're assertion that because Newt Gingrich is an adulterer no other Republicans or conservatives are all guilty by association and therefore have no right to critisize the morality of others is completely absurd.
Newt Gingrich is one man. One man who never actually lead his party unlike slick Willie, a man who has single handedly sexually harassed more women in the state of Arkansas than all of the other men in that state combined and the Dems love him for it.
RJ had it dead on. Liberals don't even pretend to have values so no one is shocked when they exhibit such ammoral behavior. As moral relativists it's expected of them.