I would not have wished for Mark Sanford's correspondence with his Argentine lover to have been made public. Most of us, I think, who have impulsively committed such intimate and passionate feelings to writing would cringe to have them published - and certainly would not want them tossed into the crass and dehumanizing environment that Sanford is now confronting.
But they are public, and I could not help myself. I read them. And, honestly, I found them quite beautiful. They are not momentous or articulate or consequential in the way that literature can be. But they are affecting and passionate and deeply, deeply human. In their poignant clumsiness, they reveal, not only two adults very much in one another's complicated thrall, but something very important about the unpredictable, irresistible imperative of love.
Which is another way of saying that I think this anti-gay Republican politician from South Carolina has helped make the argument for gay marriage in a way that few of us have been able to.
Take this passage, from Maria, about their feelings for one another: "Sometimes you don't choose things, they just happen ..." Could there be a more universal, recognizable definition of how feelings of love have no identifiable provenance? Even though it was written by a woman who seems quite heterosexual, can anyone who is homosexual avoid hearing echoes of "I didn't choose to be gay" in this expression of futility in the face of love? Maria goes on, in words that any lesbian or gay man who has finally stopped resisting their truest, inner self could recognize: "I can't redirect my feelings and I am very happy with mine towards you."
Or compare this passage Sanford wrote, with what we have argued so invariably for decades: "The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level - to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are - not what we can get, give or become." It is sentiments like this that separate Sanford from some politicians whose scandals have been swept in with his - Elliot Spitzer, Larry Craig and David Vitter. There is no (fair) comparison between their pursuit of sexual gratification and Sanford's deep, personal affection for, even adoration of, a woman not his wife.
This is all the difference in the world - both for Sanford, and particularly for us. The history of prejudice against lesbians and gay men comes primarily from the notion that it is our sexual natures which drive us. And if that were true, marriage would not need to be of any concern to us now that the sodomy laws are gone.
But in this historical moment of sexual decriminalization, marriage is even more important to us - and for the same reason it's important to heterosexuals. It involves something so much greater than just sex. It involves love, the kind that takes you by surprise and leaves you breathless - and a little bit obsessed. Marriage is an institution that channels love, tames it and denatures it some, for a longer-term benefit - not only to children but to the couple.
Adultery is a problem - an eternal one - because it interrupts the stability of marriage. It is, in fact, an impulse we should control but, as we see again and again, that unpremeditated love has a force and logic of its own.
Sanford's adultery is wrong, but his heartrending experience is all too human. It is that humanity lesbians and gay men are still struggling to have the public understand about us. We are as surprised and delighted by love as any heterosexual. And we have as little control over it. As Sanford writes, "How in the world this lightening [sic] strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure."
I don't know if any of this will or should change Sanford's mind about same-sex marriage, and I admit that question is almost beside the point. But if anyone understands love's hegemony the way we do, it is Sanford. As I read him expressing his tenderest and most rapturous feelings, I saw some of myself in him. Someday, I hope he can understand why.
13 Comments for “Love Letters”
posted by Casey on
Y’know, I hope Gov. Sanford somehow stumbles across this post someday and reads it. Not because I think it would do anything regarding his opinions on same-sex marriage – like the author says, that seems pretty beside the point – but because it’s the first place I’ve seen in all of the coverage of this event where somebody actually shows the man some real grace, understanding and kindness. I think he could use a bit of that today, and I know we can all use an example of doing so. Thanks for writing this, David.
posted by Bobby on
Isn’t it rather sanctimonious to use the moral failings of a man (adultery) as a pro-gay marriage argument? Are we that desperate?
posted by Doug on
It’s too bad Gov. Sanford didn’t show the same grace, understanding and kindness to others instead of his harsh criticism and sanctums suggestion that if he ever did such a thing he would resign. But then that’s not the way Republicans operate.
posted by TS on
An interesting take on this. When Kieth Olberman (an asshat, but an amusing one) read them to me, I wasn’t really sure what to think. But I officially agree with you… beautiful clumsiness it is. Political climber leaves behind his kingmaker and two little mannequins, goes to South America for a policy summit and finds love: complicated, true, and beautiful.
I reiterate my opinion that while the doings of politicians are public matters (particularly if he misused state funds), their personal and family activities are not criteria for judging their political merit. If he’s voted out, I hope it’s because he’s anti-gay and out of touch with people’s need for economic reassurance from government, not because of this embarrassing but meaningless disaster.
posted by bfrench on
Please stop the absurd and grotesque cravenness regarding Sanford’s public humiliation. I do not apologize to my enemies for the joy (schadenfreude) that they deserve due to their despicable acts of contempt and hypocrisy. There is WAY to much of such “I feel your pain” nonsense already emanating from IGF. Sanford is contemptible on so many levels it is breath-taking.
For those of you who espouse the principle of privacy regarding Sanford’s “indiscretion” I say hogwash. The man elected to become a public figure, and in the public eye he operates. This man publicly detests who we are, can anyone please explain why we keep groveling at the feet of such pathetic creatures. Sanford hasn’t received the full measure of what he deserves from the public. He should resign in disgrace immediately. Then he can throw a southern style tea party for all you hangers-on who feel so much empathy for him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The history of prejudice against lesbians and gay men comes primarily from the notion that it is our sexual natures which drive us.
That would be because, Link, you’re sitting here going on and on about how beautiful and wonderful a man cheating on his wife both physically and emotionally is.
Your entire argument is based on one’s own gratification, which is about as far off the mark as love can possibly be. You dress up betrayal and destruction of others to get your jollies as something beautiful.
These letters are disgusting. How could a man possibly write this to someone when he himself had pledged his life to another person who was at the same moment raising his children and trusting him? They are repulsive views into the soul of someone who is horrifically self-centered and is willing to destroy other peoples’ lives for his own desires.
The fact that you find something good in them shows that you have zero idea of the importance of marriage. The fact that you equate what Sanford has with this woman to what gays and lesbians feel with their sexual partners shows that gay and lesbian relationships are equivalent to adulterous heterosexual ones.
posted by BobN on
Holy crap! It hurts to type this, but I… I… I agree with ND30.
Yikes!
posted by Pat on
I agree with NDT as well, except possibly this statement…
The fact that you equate what Sanford has with this woman to what gays and lesbians feel with their sexual partners shows that gay and lesbian relationships are equivalent to adulterous heterosexual ones.
If this is your assertion, NDT, then I disagree with this statement. I’m assuming that you really meant to state your belief that David is asserting that gay and lesbian relationships are equivalent to adulterous heterorsexual ones.
As such, David, it does appear that you are equating gay and lesbian relationships are equivalent to adulterous heterosexual ones. Granted, you do repeat a couple of times that you believe adultery is wrong.
Perhaps you were trying to say the following…Most people understand that it is not only possible, but all too often a married person finds oneself attracted to and even fall in love with another person. Because of this, perhaps people should be more understanding and accepting that there are people that are attracted to another person of one’s own gender. The problem with the former is that there is already a commitment and one shouldn’t act on the attraction or love. But with the latter, as long as there is no commitment, persons should be free to pursue someone of the same gender and, if it’s in the cards, be able to marry that person.
posted by Casey on
BFrench, if you believe that giving grace to a flawed person is an act of groveling submission, then you seriously misunderstand the nature of forgiveness. It is the person who gives grace, who elects not to condemn, who has the power. Forgiveness is an exercise of that power. There is nothing inferior about it. I’m sorry for you if you believe otherwise, and hope the day never comes that you need somebody else to give you grace, and you discover how helpless in that moment you are, whether it is given or not.
posted by MarriageIsLove? on
Sorry folks, but love and marriage have never ever ever gone hand in hand. I do believe that gays should have every much a right to destroy their love with marriage as the rest of us, but let’s be real.
Marriage is a contract to share resources and time with a person whom you likely wont even be able to stand 15-years down the road. Marriage turns the act of love into an obligation. The Western concept of romantic love was born out of the extramarital affairs of Middle Aged women.
NDT, Gov. Sanford is a liar and cheater, but the point to me is-should we really be “pledging our lives” 50-60 years into the future when we have no clue what it is that we may want then? The marriage vows themselves encourage the lies. Society buys into the concept of a lifelong romantic marriage. Duhm.
posted by bfrench on
Casey, please save your sorrowfulness for someone who can use it, as I have no need of it! I live my life by First Principles, mainly, Treat Others as You Wish to be Treated. That does not make me perfect, I am human and make my share of mistakes. However, let me be very clear, Sanford’s marital infidelity requires not MY forgiveness of his hypocritical act, but that of his wife, children, and those whom he hurt and offended. Your “power” of forgiveness is FALSE because this man’s behavior bears no relationship to YOU personally. Save your forgiveness for those truly in need of it, as that will be a more appropriate use of the power of which you describe.
There have been many times in my life where I have explained to those I have hurt that I am sorry for what I have said or done. I never ask for their forgiveness, as you explained that exercise of power lies within the individual who was hurt. They are free to give or withhold it.
If I can restate: Sanford is a detestable hypocrite who wouldn’t know how to live by First Principles because he has become corrupted by his greed and lust for power. I am not one to waste time trying to win over enemies of FULL inclusive homosexual rights and responsibilities. Sanford, like so many other creatures of politics, has used and abused the homosexual community as a stepping-stone to his quest for power over others. If anyone needs to be asking forgiveness it would be him begging the forgiveness of the homosexual community for his despicable hypocrisy.
posted by bfrench on
PS: If and when that day arrives, I shall happily extend a forgiving hand to a man who has hurt so many gays and lesbians with his words and deeds:-)
posted by Audrey the Liberal on
TS-“If he’s voted out, I hope it’s because he’s anti-gay and out of touch with people’s need for economic reassurance from government” Note to the ‘Left’: You can’t invite the government into the board room, then expect them to stay out of the bed room. Note to the ‘Right’: The inverse goes for you as well.