Post F - The Anthony Weiner Scandal, and Morality

Today's post is inspired by Anthony Weiner, without whom we would not have been able to laugh at all of the awesome headlines we have read over the past month. When I first thought of this topic I was planning on focusing on politicians and what impact their actions outside of “work” should have on their ability to make decisions for the country. As I was showering this morning (which is where I do my best thinking) I realized that the problem is bigger than Mr. Weiner and his inability to keep his camera phone pointed away from himself. The problem is with those who attempt to legislate morality. So that is what today's topic is going to be.

Katie Says - 

First, let me list my stance on a few things. I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-just about everything. I do not believe that laws should be enacted limiting what I can and cannot do in my private life unless it affects others negatively. Laws should be in place to stop people from hurting other people, animals, and property. They should not be put in place to force a moral code on the populace.

My beliefs go both ways. I do not think churches should be forced to perform marriages between two homosexuals. They are a private institution separate from the government and therefore should be given that choice. At the same time, a gay person should have the right to walk into any courthouse in America and get exactly the same services as I could. Anything else is discrimination, which I am pretty sure we already figured out was a bad idea. Some say that homosexuals marrying is harmful to others because it is harmful to society as a whole. Bull poop. How would we even know that? We haven't given them a chance.

So basically what I am saying is that everyone should be able to do pretty much what they want within reason. What do I care if my neighbor smokes pot? As long as he keeps his lawn mowed and doesn't have loud parties all night long it has no affect on myself or my family. I think we are all so caught up in what others are doing we fail to look at things objectively and realize that it really doesn't impact us in any way.

This is where it ties back into Mr. Weiner. In all honesty I don't care if he had affairs with 30 women at once. As long as his poor judgment in his personal life does not affect how he represents his constituents then who cares? If I were to have an affair (and I would not Handsome, I promise) and my husband found out I would not be asked to resign my post unless it was having an impact on my job performance. Let's be honest, whatever freaky stuff he was getting up to had no impact on his job performance, the media did. If the media hadn't seen dollar signs we would never have known.

Bottom line, we need to stop being so caught up in what others are doing and look to ourselves.  

Rob Says -   

I more or less agree with Katie. It’s a slippery slope when you begin to allow laws to be passed simply because of a moral issue. As I’ve stated before, I support freedoms OF, and not freedoms FROM. Sometimes I have to roll my car windows up if another car is too loud, sometimes I have to change the channel on the television if I find something offensive. I take responsibility for myself in those situations, and don’t feel like I need the government’s help limiting my exposure to them.   

Anthony Weiner is sort of a different issue, however. Anthony Weiner is a law-maker, and it doesn’t appear that he’s run afoul of any particular laws. I think what Katie is getting at, however, is that if Mr. Weiner can do his job, he should be allowed to do it. Texting someone a picture of your abdomen is not itself an impediment to law-crafting or debate.  

The issue at hand is whether or not his constituents feel that those actions are in line with their beliefs. I’m not sure how he campaigned, but if he talked about family values, or some such, then this may be evidence of deceit. Or it could be evidence of his commitment to family. The fact that, as opposed to engaging in a full-on affair, he simply sent pictures of himself to some women and was not engaging in rampant philandering may be evidence of his commitment to his family.  

The truth of the matter is that men are hard-wired to court women. Most of us are able to recall our commitments to our wives and families before acting in the way Mr. Weiner did, and keep out of this kind of trouble. I’m sure his wife may feel differently, and no doubt some of you do as well. My opinion is that as long as he wasn’t abusing taxpayer resources for his flirtatious escapades, and his law-making abilities were unaffected – it’s not worth the attention it has gotten.    

However, if his constituents feel their trust and confidence in him were affected then it is certainly worth discussion. 

Legislators are people, too, and prone to the same mistakes as everyone else. Is that the wrong way to look at this?