Vitter’s Values or Crime & Punishment: By Eric Marcus
July 24, 2007
June 24, 2007
David Vitter, the Republican Senator from Louisiana, is not your average John. He’s a family values John. No mere defender of traditional marriage, he declared, as Frank Rich wrote in his July 22 New York Times column, “that there is no ‘more important’ issue facing America than altering the constitution to defend marriage.”
And just because he was caught up in the DC Madam scandal and was forced to acknowledge his transgressions before the cameras while holding his wife’s hand (she had once threatened to use that hand to Bobbitt him if she caught him doing what he’s now admitted he’s done, so I’m surprised he wasn’t holding both her hands) that doesn’t make him any less a believer in the sanctity of marriage. It does, however, make him a hypocrite and a law-breaker. And for these crimes he must be punished.
I propose a two-part punishment: removal from the Senate and restitution to the women whose services he paid for. If Vitter had the values most of us value, he would have used his recent press conference to announce his resignation. But he doesn’t and he didn’t, so the Senator’s Republican colleagues, at least the righteous ones among them, should persuade him to resign. Failing that, the full Senate should vote to expel him.
Regarding restitution, some might argue that this was a victimless crime and that Vitter doesn’t owe the women with whom he sex anything more than he’s already paid. I disagree. So I propose that Vitter pay for first-class health insurance—like the plan that all members of Congress have voted to give themselves—for all of the women he slept with. And their children. For life. (Family values Republicans are no fans of condoms, so we can only speculate what the good Senator might have exposed these women to.)
Maybe good Christians can find it in their hearts to forgive this serial sinner and let him work out his public shame in private. But I’m no Christian and I have no doubt that this hard-charging, upstanding straight guy who campaigned to screw us gay folks out of the legal right to marry—while he paid to screw someone other than his wife—must be punished. Let’s put old-fashioned American values to work. Send him home. Make him pay.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized. .
2 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed



1.
Nick | July 25, 2007 at 4:09 am
Dear Eric,
I agree that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is an injustice to our community. And I’m not going to touch the condom issue because, unless you were there, you have no right to make assumptions or draw conclusions.
I’m writing to discuss the man who claimed to be our friend and then signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines, at the Federal level, marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Only. Before you so vociferously vilify Senator Vitter, at least we know where he stands. President Clinton, on the other hand, shook your hand with his right and stabbed you in the back with his left. Who’s the real enemy?
2.
Eric Marcus | July 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Dear Nick,
Thanks for your comment. You may have noticed that I was writing about Vitter, not Clinton. But regarding Clinton I have nothing good to say about him and the Defense of Marriage Act. It was a shameful, immoral thing to do. However, he’s no longer in office. Vitter is.
Now, about the condoms, Vitter and his conservative Republican cohorts, who have so vigorously promoted abstinence education and discouraged condom use, have plenty to answer for, including unwanted pregnancies, disease, and death. Maybe he used a condom. Maybe he didn’t. But if he did, he’s all the more of a hypocrite. If he didn’t, then he’s incredibly irresponsible. Given who he is and what he’s done, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make assumptions and draw conclusions.