Karl Rove Ends His Second Traditional Marriage

Karl Rove, that fierce defender of “traditional marriage” and fanatical conservative activist against same-sex marriage, and his second wife, have divorced.

Glenn Greenwald — who, as Andrew Sullivan points out, has been “forced into exile because his own partner cannot reside in the US” — is lacerating:

Karl Rove is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, citing “5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage” as his justification.  He also famously engineered multiple referenda to incorporate a ban on same-sex marriage into various states’ constitutions in 2004 in order to ensure that so-called “”Christian conservatives” and “value voters” who believe in “traditional marriage laws” would turn out and help re-elect George W. Bush.  Yet, like so many of his like-minded pious comrades, Rove seems far better at preaching the virtues of “traditional marriage” to others and exploiting them for political gain than he does adhering to those principles in his own life[.]

[...]

Rove obtained his divorce under Texas’ “no-fault” divorce law, one of the most permissive in the nation.  That law basically allows any married couple to simply end their marriage because they feel like it.  Texas, needless to say, is one of the states which has constitutionally barred same-sex marriages, and has a Governor who explicitly cites Christian dogma as the reason to support that provision, yet the overwhelming majority of Texan citizens make sure that there’s nothing in the law making their own marriages binding or permanent — i.e., traditional.  They’re willing to limit other people’s marriage choices on moral grounds, but not their own, and thus have a law that lets them divorce whenever the mood strikes.  That’s the very permissive, untraditional and un-Christian law that Rove just exploited in order to obtain his divorce.

Dana Perino, who is now the “family spokesperson” for the very traditional Rovian family, “requests that [Rove's] privacy be respected.” This, of course, is the same Rove who has used his own brand of raw, brass-knuckled political power to disrespect and invade the privacy of gay and lesbian couples.

Remember that old witticism that goes, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”? Glenn gives it a new twist:

I’ve long thought that the solution to the cheap, cost-free moralizing that leads very upstanding people like Karl Rove to want to ban same-sex marriages (which they don’t want to enter into themselves, and thus cost them nothing) is to have those same “principles” apply consistently to all marriage laws.  If Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their friends and followers actually were required by law to stay married to their wives — the way that “traditional marriage” was generally supposed to work — the movement to have our secular laws conform to “traditional marriage” principles would almost certainly die a quick, quiet and well-deserved death.

Author: KATHY KATTENBURG

Share This Post On

17 Comments

  1. Same sex marriage is irrelevant and out of the question regarding this venture, but one can clearly see that conservative values among republicans is an absolutely hysterical perception.

    Where is that jackass John Bolton these days? Anybody keeping tabs on him? Can't wait to see his reputation dragged through the mud.

  2. Yes, the hypocrisy screams, but then my imagination can't go so far as to imagine what it must be like to be married to a guy like that. Bolton, too, by the whiskers.

  3. True about your principle on walking the talk. But, the glory days of “Focus on the Family” and Liberty Univ. are long disappeared, leaving their adherents to a different political atmosphere.

  4. While I support gay marriage, I don't understand the claim that Rove invaded gays privacy. Marriages and divorces are public actions.

    In any event the left making hay out of Rove's divorce is really just sinking to Rove's level.

  5. Hypocrisy never presented an obstacle for Rove before this (nor for those who supported his methods) so why would anyone be surprised to find he can't walk the walk?

  6. I have yet to hear or read anyone who can present a cogent argument on why the question of who someone else marries, has sex with or otherwise consorts with, should be any of my business or the government's business.

    Happy New Year to all…regardless of who you partner with and regardless of what form that partnership takes.

    g. c.

  7. I have yet to hear or read anyone who can present a cogent argument on why the question of who someone else marries, has sex with or otherwise consorts with, should be any of my business or the government's business.

    I agree who people decide to have sex with or consort with is no one else's business but the people involved. Marriage is a little different since it is a public contract asking for legal governmental recognition, and has a bearing on taxation, estates, power of attorney, etc, etc. As such the government should be able to define under what parameters it considers marriage.

  8. I do remember reading somewhere that Rove and his wife were polar opposites, politically. When he was working in the White House and not around that much, it was probably okay. But once they had to actually spend time and space together, it fell apart. I would never rejoice in someone's divorce, but is this really all that surprising? Rove is one seriously unpleasant fellow.

  9. DaGoat said, “Marriage is a little different since it is a public contract asking for legal governmental recognition, and has a bearing on taxation, estates, power of attorney, etc, etc. As such the government should be able to define under what parameters it considers marriage.”

    Oh, bullpucky! :-)

    Marriage is a religious sacrament that government butted into about 150 years ago as a fundraising device (charging fees for the issuance of marriage licenses). Issues of taxation, estates, or division of assets can be accomplished by recognizing households (taxation) and implied contracts (estates and division of assets). Powers of Attorney are strictly based on contractual documents. None of these functions requires a governmental definition of marriage.

    Just my dumb opinion. Whether you partner up gay, straight or other is about as much the government's business as whether you start your day with coffee, tea or Red Bull.

  10. You might feel differently with regard to both of the above assertions if the same far right political operative who used the legal system to prevent you and your life partner from marrying in the name of “traditional values” at the same time used to his advantage that same legal system in order to flout those very same traditional values in his own life.

    If marriages and divorces are public actions, then Dana Perino was wrong, both factually and morally, to request that people “respect” the Rove family's “privacy.”

    What *I* don't understand is why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, even for people who at least nominally support marriage equality. One shouldn't *have* to be gay or lesbian to grasp it. Every decent human being should be able to understand this. I am not gay, and I feel it on a visceral level. I don't think I'm so extraordinarily different from anyone else in my ability to feel.

  11. I just saw this. So then you don't support same-sex marriage?

  12. I just saw this. So then you don't support same-sex marriage?

    I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage and generally support it, although I'm not going to go marching in the streets for it.

    I was responding to tidbits assertion that marriage is not the government's business. It IS their business, and people seeking legal recognition of gay marriage realize it is the government's business. Personally I think splitting marriage into a religious sacrament recognized by the church and a civil contract recognized by the government would make sense, but right now it's all kind of jumbled together.

    On Rove, of course his divorce is a matter of public record and if people want to criticize it then more power to them, but really this is 99% partisan finger-pointing and 1% any real concern over Rove's actions. Rove is pretty much irrelevant at this point anyway. Partisans consider hypocrisy the greatest sin of all, except when they commit it themselves.

  13. What is this garbage pornography under “Reactions”?

    We cannot view TMV with children present anymore? Have the “Sexually Oriented” taken over the Normally Oriented world now?

    Get these disgusting pigs off the blog!

  14. FT -

    Agreed that these guerilla marketing ploys should be kept off the site a) because, despite our disagreement on some sexual issues, I do draw the line at children as you rightly point out, and b) because it devalues TMV's ad space to allow the Reactions section, or the comment section, to be used for commercial solicitation purposes.

  15. dear fatherTime, thanks for the heads up… the reactions can be hidden (disquis has provided a button for that.) I will contact Tyrone to see if there is a way to delete 'reactions.' Thus far, not that I know of.

    The spammers have discovered twitter I see. Hang in there.

    dr.e

  16. Why is Rove's crotch private but my gay cousin's crotch should go to prison or be unmarried?

  17. Good post Kathy.
    Onward to equality, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA.

Submit a Comment