As a long married Catholic whose quite old-fashioned mother-in-law once described as “positively Victorian”, I take relatively less interest in sodomy than I do in Mr. Sanford’s sin–it’s closer to home, if you know what I mean. So I asked the reverend gentleman about something I’d noticed in every Episcopal congregation I had joined over the years: the standard Episcopal family contains a decidedly prosperous-looking husband in his late 50s or mid 60s, a slim, pretty wife in her early 30s, and a couple of toddlers. At Christmas and Easter, they add a visiting 20-something son or daughter to the family circle. Was I mistaken in thinking that Our Lord explicitly condemns one and only one sexual sin in the Gospels, I asked? and that it isn’t sodomy or gomorahmy or any other ‘my?

He knew what I meant. But I’m afraid to say that I rubbed it in. Why do breakaway Episcopalians worry about minority sins, I asked, whether real or alleged, when they have a positive epidemic of Serial Adultery in their midst? And isn’t it true that the Episcopal Church was established to make Serial Adultery ecclesiastically kosher, despite the literal word of the Savior? So how can a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman be such a scandal that it justifies schism? Is it really worse than a man dumping a “starter wife” for a recreational upgrade? If the Episcopal Church is prepared to defer to individual conscience on divorce (rightly, I think), isn’t it also right to defer in the matter of homosexual marriages?

To be fair, the clergyman in question acknowledged my point about divorce and Episcopalianism, even if he wasn’t prepared to concede the rest of my point. But most so-called conservatives–including conservative Episcopalians and Catholics–just can’t see the parallel. They are too focused on conserving what is “theirs” by taking away what is someone else’s.

Breaking per MSNBC = Sanford to hold news conference tomorrow at 10

That’s 4 am Maui-time.

Those 2 pm pressers work just great. Please revert.

I doubt the GOP’s “fam values” strategy is going to change any time soon

Snort. One of the “good things” about having “old eyes” is that I occasionally misread stuff.

I though you said the GOP’s “farm values.” [This is response to someone’s comment about the romantic possibilities of farm animals.] [I do, however, think that’s rather mean to the farm animals.]

And BTW, with the “anonymous sending” of Safford’s e-mail messages to the press, how do you think the Repubs are feeling about that “naw, no problem with warrantless wiretapping & surveillance” thing-y they were so in love with just a few months ago?

Not that it would matter to ME, but for a member of the party that played the Name Game with Obama’s middle name, this is the cherry on top of that hypocrisy pie.

Limpy blames Obama for Sanford.

clinton’s affair didn’t bother, much less outrage me for three reasons:

1. he didn’t thump his bible and fling it in my general direction.
2. he didn’t go around talking about how gays destroy the institution of marriage.
3. he did not go incommunicado for a week without delegating his administrative responsibilities