Family Values Groups Still Silent on Mark Sanford
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
One week after Mark Sanford admitted to his affair with an Argentine woman—and a day after he called his mistress his "soul mate" and acknowledged further indiscretions—I'm struck by the total silence of pro-family groups.
The Family Research Council has been completely quiet on the South Carolina governor's affair. So has Concerned Women for America. Ditto for Focus on the Family.
The wall of silence is all the more striking given that 10 Palmetto State senators in Sanford's own party have called for him to step down. Does the pro-family movement burn up credibility if it looks the other way when Republican allies own up to extramarital affairs? One recent book makes that case:
As long as we as Christians are willing to tolerate or overlook duplicity in our self-identified party, it will be clear to the world that our allegiance is to a party and not the truth, regardless of what we claim. . . .
[T]he evangelical movement has been guilty of preferring access over accountability. All too often evangelicals have tolerated major breaches of character or competence within the Republican Party or certain "pet" conservative groups. But if we are ever to speak as the moral conscience of the nation, we must consistently stand for a clear set of values and principles, no matter if that leads to a temporary loss of political power.
That passage doesn't come from the pen of a religious lefty. It's from a book by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and fellow conservative activist Harry Jackson. The book, called Personal Faith, Public Policy, was published last year.
Sanford has admitted to duplicitousness and breaches of character. So why the silence from pro-family groups, even as Republican calls for his resignation mount?
- Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mark Sanford.
- Follow Dan Gilgoff on Twitter.
- Read more about Republicans.
Tags: religion | Mark Sanford
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (17) | Print
Reader Comments
2 issues and 2 issues only
Because the religious right doesn't REALLY care about national moral character. They don't care about infidelity or corruption or hypocrisy. They care only about ideally (in their minds) banning all homosexual behavior and abortion. Banning.
So, they don't care if politicians screw around, extort, take improper money from lobbyists, break laws, etc. as long as they support nominees and policies that inch towards (or outright) bans on homosexuality and abortion.
They just refuse to say any of this outright and instead mask their true desires with talk of "moral character" and "values" when in fact they don't give a crap about any of that - they only give a crap about those 2 issues.
Please do your research, Mr. Gilgoff.
A little homework reveals that the claim that conservative groups offer only “total silence” is based on Gilgoff’s total failure to do his homework.
Contrary to Gilgoff’s assertion, Concerned Women for America (CWA) has spoken out on the
Sanford issue.
Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for CWA, published “Who Cares About a Politician’s Affair?” at townhall.com. The article denounced Sanford’s lack of remorse for falling prey to the “lightning strike” of “love.”
Wendy Wright, President of CWA, along with Penny Nance, a CWA board member, wrote “The Sanford Affair” published on Human Events on June 29 . The article forthrightly stated, “Let us be clear: Mark Sanford should and will face serious consequences. Watching the clip of his confession is witnessing his political death.” It probed the idea that Republicans should not use the Sanford affair as a rallying cry for Republicans to throw out “family values” and to disparage marriage” but an opportunity to prove why “they [family values] are important and worth fighting for.”
But the most incriminating evidence against Gilgoff’s claim is an article Gilgoff himself wrote entitled “Will Sanford's Apologies Pass Muster With the Pro-Family Movement?” It featured an extensive “phone conversation about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's admitted affair” between Gilgoff and none other than Wendy Wright.
Please do your research, Mr. Gilgoff.
Tony Perkins has clearly spoken on marriage issues among key conservatives
A common problem with articles like this is they fail to investigate prior to reporting. Then, too many people consider something like this to be gospel fact as long as it is in print and is not from a source like Fox News.
In a recent interview on the Ed Show on MSNBC, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented on how multiple conservatives and those in the Republican party are letting down their constituents.
With respect to the uncovering of marital infidelity among several key leaders, Perkins stated "there is a sense of hypocrisy, it's not that you shouldn't take on these issues (of faithfulness in marriage)...if you are going to champion these issues, you have to live by a higher standard"
He went on to say "I think all public servants should be faithful to their vows of marriage, I can't imagine why voters would think that politicians would be faithful to them, if they are not faithful to their spouse.
While this whole issue with Sanford and others is terribly disappointing, it should not serve as a distraction to conservatives of the issues that are in need of addressing in our country right now. There are many who would much prefer we spend time talking about a fallen conservative congressman or governor as opposed to investigating the issues that are buried in the healthcare proposal and global warming spending and tax plan. Sanford's political future is very likely over, but for those who remain, we must continue to address issue, not distractions. President Obama promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and he is agreeing in principle now to multiple proposals that will do just that. That is an issue of unfaithfulness to his electorate, but few are willing to report on it. Talk about hypocrisy!!!
It's a shame that this is considered journalism when you can't get all the facts. It seems from this article you are more interested in painting a biased picture against Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council than you are in doing your job.
Do US News and its readers a favor and do take off those biased lenses!
advertisement
