Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  hypocrites

‘Family Values’ Republican Rep. Mark Souder Resigning Over Staffer Affair

Because this is how the word works, Rep. Mark Souder, the eight-term Republican from Indiana, will today announce his resignation because he’s … been cheating on his wife Diane Bauer with a female staffer.

Yes, that’s the same Souder who championed family values during his 1994 initial campaign and went on to vote against making illegal workplace discrimination, against letting gays adopt in D.C., and voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

We’d say “don’t let the door hit ya,” but it already has.

Looking at this another way, it’s great news for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who’s vying for a U.S. Senate seat, as it serves as a nice distraction for having been caught lying about his Vietnam War record.

By:           editor editor
On:           May 18, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 20 Comments
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      More proof that bigotry is behind conservative opposition to gay equality, not any legitimate belief that families are being protected. If he even had a basic, fundamental belief in the protection of his own family, he would not have cheated on his wife. For him to legislate against gay families is the height of sickening arrogance.

      May 18, 2010 at 9:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Another nail in the coffin of hypocrisy and bigotry in the GOP. Now I wonder who Maggie Gallagher will blame for that?

      May 18, 2010 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      Loves it.

      Aside: who would want to sleep with him? I’m glad someone did tho. I love when family values hypocrites are exposed.

      May 18, 2010 at 10:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Hey Congressman Souder….is sleeping with an employee and cheating on your wife part of this “Traditional Marriage” that you talk about on your website? Another typical Moral Hypocrite who refuses to live by the rules he seeks to force others to live by.

      May 18, 2010 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      He must have some kind of magical personality… ’cause that face is unfuckable.

      May 18, 2010 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      I keep saying Queerty (or somebody) needs to make a giant chart of all the family values folks. with a picture, maybe a dated quote from the campaign trail re: traditional families/marriage; and then the info on how when & how long they’ve been cheating.

      May 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joey O'H
      Joey O'H

      It’s always a sunny day even when it’s raining… When one of these family values-type Republicans does exactly what he’s so very much against. Another one bites the dust…
      Although, I can’t imagine anyone getting excited over this man. I mean, he’s no prize and very hard on the eyes. I can’t imagine the women who sleep with him look like?

      May 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      All I know is, the woman who slept with Rep. Mark Souder had to be mighty desperate.

      May 18, 2010 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      He’ll probably claim he did it to help balance out the statistics on GOP sex scandals, which are too same-sex in nature to keep the GOP “base” happy!

      May 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      As comforting that another right wing hypocrite is caught with their pants down never changes their retoric. What we have seen time and time again is that we are the Republicans Willie Horton (i.e. Bush smear campaign used in 1988 Presidential election).

      The GOP has been in scandal after scandal and the party never takes responsiblity. Just today we see that Bristol Palin is going to get anywhere between $15,000-$30,000 to speak about abstinence. Could you imagine what the Republicans would be saying if the Democrats V.P. child had a child out of wedlock let alone was speaking about abstinence?

      The two things that the Republicans are great at are never taking responcility and at pointing fingers (they also have no sence of humor and no sence of style.)

      So another family values canidate gets caught. Sure it’s great news but like this is going to stop the Republicans from using family values against us. What we all have to admire about the Republican party is how well they fight. They don’t back down. That is something we in our community must also do.

      Fighting the issue of family values isn’t the right fight unless they are saying that ONLY a family can be a man and a woman. That really is the fight. We must borrow from them. We are ALL a family. That is the message we should be saying. A family with a man and woman is great and so is a family with two men or two women. Love is all that the child needs. This is something much easier to sell.

      May 18, 2010 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Something about that jowly face makes me think… when he cums… he must blow a load of processed cheese food.

      May 18, 2010 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      why is this a surprise???? so typical of haters….

      May 18, 2010 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      He has always been anti-gay marriage. Remember..we have to preserve the “sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman”..

      My partner and I have been together twenty years now ..MONOGAMOUSLY Yet because of politicians like him we cannot get married here in Ohio. We have to pay over $450 a month for my partner’s health insurance (he is self employed). If we were married he could go on my plan at work for about $20.-like my straight married friends at work. A woman I work with who is now on marriage number 3 has her new hubby and her kids and HIS kids on our plan. I cannot put my partner on my plan because he is not “family.” Fair?

      What a farce this guy is!!!

      May 19, 2010 at 12:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffrey
      jeffrey

      Yep: Whatever lifts your luggage beyotch! Rep. Souder forgets that the New Testament spoke more often about adultery and divorce than it did about guy-on-guy action! Yet another hypocrite shows the “truth” behind the statement “do as i preach, but not as I do.”

      Why is it that the more a congressman talks about “family values” the more we suspect he’s gettin’ a little “action” on the side ?!?

      May 19, 2010 at 1:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Jamesstone – The father of HIS kids should paying medical and financial support unless Mom adopted them. And usually courts are very reluctant to terminate parental responsbilities.

      Now, if she has NOT adopted HIS kids and the mother of HIS kids is NOT ordered to pay (which unfortunately is different than NOT paying despite having an order), then your company is allowing your coworker to put the whole world on the coverage. So then you should find out why they can’t make an acception for you…. Let me know on this thread what you find out.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Well, I just asked a lady here at work, and she said the insurance companies allow putting stepkids on. But I do know that they are not required by law to do so, your company is paying for that option. And the reason I know for sure is in my tiny cash strapped city, new hires get coverage for themselves, and not for spouses or kids. Either way though, it is still unfair. In other words if enough people protested or enough companies would pay for it, I’m sure “living together partners would be covered.” In fact, that has been covered in some of the threads here. Some workplaces wanted to cover hetero LTP and the courts said no, you have to cover both.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      @Jaroslaw: Her new husband is a private contractor in construction. He of course is permitted to be on her plan and since he is responsible for his children’s health insurance he somehow was allowed to put the kids on her “family” plan.
      As far as putting my partner on my plan?? That will be a very cold day in hell before that happens. I work for a Catholic hospital!!! We all know how they feel about gay relationships! They do not even pay for contraceptives-the pill or vasectomies.
      Here’s the hypocrisy…my friend is on her third marriage! Obviously divorce in the Catholic church-although is looked upon badly-is not as bad as homosexuality.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mikenstl
      Mikenstl

      @Jaroslaw: (about step kids on health insurance)

      I believe that if the kids are dependents (she and her husband pay more than half of their support) then the insurance company would have to cover them and even they don’t pay more than half, the ex-spouse can transfer the tax deductions etc. I don’t think this is wrong to do, however I do think it’s wrong to not extend the same benefits to gay couples. I am fortunate that my partner works for a progressive company that allows domestic partners on their health plan. However, it sucks that we must count it as income and pay taxes on it when straight couples do not.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No 17. JamesStone, at one time, the roman cult would only allow annulments (code for divorce) if the marriage was never consummated; adultery; didn’ want children; either spouse never really intended marrying the other or refused to have any offspring raised as catholics. Nowadays, you can have an annulment for virtually any reason, as long as you are prepared to pay several thousand dollars. I have two older friends who filed for annulment after 19 years of marriage. It cost them about $8000.00 and that was more than ten years ago You can imagine how much more it costs today. Its big money for the cult. It can insist all it wants that it doesn’t believe in divorce, its a load of baloney. When any marriage is dissolved its called divorce in a civil court.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      @Robert, NYC: I wonder if we will ever see the church accept gay relationships in our lifetime?? I can still remember when it was a “sin” to eat meat on Friday!!

      Now..I am not the “sharpest tool in the shed” but if I was writing the rules of a religious organization I would accept ALL of God’s children!! People are leaving the church in droves-especially gay people. Gay “God’s children” have money too and would give if they were allowed to or decided to remain under the churches roof. Catholic homophobia is a BAD business move! Let’s face it-it is all about money.

      But..you have to remember..the C.E.O of the Catholic church is most assuredly an old closet case dealing with internal homophobia. So, there you have it!!

      May 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.