Janie makes a whole lot of sense.

In my view, it ought to be legally 'possible' for people to write their 'marriage' contracts to reflect personal views...including same-sex, multiple relationships..etc. Then, in cases of upsets, certain details would not be at question....

But this would not deal with the issue of political office. NO MATTER WHAT a major politician and his/her spouse agree on (like Eisenhower or Roosevelt), they know that many constituents will not agree and can/will vote to reflect more conservative views. Back then, the press had some sort of agreement to not publish everything they knew....now, with technology as it is (like finding cell phone records from the Atlanta airport), it has become a major sport and business to follow, record, film, question and analyze everything a major public figure does. This has both positive & negative aspects, as it is often the case that 'morals' get confused with 'ability to do the job' and occupy way too much of the news cycle.


Sanford not only broke obvious 'promises'...both specific & implied...with his wife AND his constituents...he also showed an abysmal lack of recognition of how private he could keep such affairs. If he had tried to run for president, someone whould have gleefully broken the story at an 'interesting' moment. He merely made it easier.

What is most interesting to me, is how other Republicans are struggling to decide what to say publically.