Tip o' the hat to Judy over at LivingBlue.org, who had this great post about (yet another) Press & Argus story on Rogers' divorce:
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Romanticizing Rogers' Divorce
The Press & Argus is working hard to make sure that Rep. Mike Rogers suffers no political harm because of his pending divorce.
First there was the story of the divorce plans, with Rogers' plea for privacy slamming the door on any questions about the circumstances of a divorce by someone who claims to be protecting the sanctity of marriage. Next came the story (already blogged about here ) reassuring readers that there is no reason for Rogers to suffer politically due to his divorce because voters shouldn't care about that kind of thing.
Now Buddy Moorehouse is weighing in with a syrup-laden account of how it almost happened to him, too. Why, if he had finished first instead of third in that Republican primary five years ago, he, too, would have gone into politics and that could have destroyed his marriage.
Message: The divorce isn't Rogers' fault at all. Its the fault of the big-bad world of politics.
Some people already are weighing in on Moorehouse's column with the observation that divorce doesn't just "happen" to people like a car accident or a hurricane. People who truly believe in the santity of marriage participate actively in their relationships and have the free will to stay together or not. You would think that members of the party of personal responsiblity would understand that rather than blame the divorce on "politics."
Moorehouse assures us that Rogers and all the other divorced politicians are good people. Funny, when President Clinton and Senator Clinton had trouble in their marriage, we didn't hear that -- only that Clinton was the devil incarnate. And when the Clintons stayed together rather than take the easier road of divorce, Republicans gave them no support for upholding the sanctity of marriage. Instead, they -- especially Senator Clinton -- have been attacked as calculating political animals.
Furthermore, Moorehouse's assurances that Rogers is a good person who merely had a bad thing happen to him makes me wonder -- how does he know? Does the Livingston Press & Argus know details about the divorce that it's not sharing with the rest of us? Or is he just taking Rogers' word for it?
I'm sure that the Rogers family is suffering right now and I know (but not from personal experience) that divorce hurts. I also know that people get divorced every day. That's not the issue. The issue is that Rogers has been throwing stones at the way other people live their lives by opposing same sex marriage, abortion, and other choices that people make in their private lives. And all the time he has been willingly living in a glass house called the Republican Party that says people should be responsible for the choices they make and that marriage is holy.
Shouldn't the Press & Argus at least acknowledge Rogers' hypocrisy?